From FB: How to Operate Smoothly in Probate with Little Oversight, the story of Miriam Solo Soloveichik Greenfield Faskowitz

Miriam Solo (aka Miriam Greenfield, Miriam Soloveichik, Miriam Faskowitz)

licensed attorney, Illinois.

Parents: Rose Joffen (Raizel) and Chaim Borouch Faskowitz

Siblings: 4 siblings, 5 children total. Moshe, Moredchai, Brandy and Michel.

Link to supporting document file:  https://drive.google.com/open?id=1wZKLV_7s6uYmE-Heg83u3wWmO7be7k-Z

Estate involvement:

1) Estate of Marjorie Ivy, a long time girl friend of brother Mordecai Faskowitz

On April 11, 2014, Chris Ivy, the nephew of Marjorie Ivy, files a Petition to become the Independent Administrator of his deceased sister Marjorie Ivy. Page 1

According to a October 11, 2013 article in the Chicago Tribune, Mordecai Faskowitz shared an apartment with 70 year old Marjorie Ivy, page 12. The Cook County medical examiner’s office determined that Marjorie Ivy died from multiple stab wounds and cuts in a homicide. Mordechai Faskowitz was held without bail on a murder charge.

Marjorie Ivy had been dead for days, because a man who had keys to the building discovered her body because he had not seen her for days and the apartment was emitting a foul odor. Page 12.

Mordecai F. Admitted to the crime but had to be tazed by police so they could arrest him. Page 13. A friend said of Ivy, that she was a very nice person “who was passionate about animal rights.”

The value of Marjorie’s estate in the Petition was listed as $850,000 by the nephew Chris Ivy.

On page 3, a listing of Marjorie’s assets shows a Vanguard IRA, a Drefus Crop investment account and a New York Life Insurance policy, all naming Moredecai Faskowitz as Beneficiary and/or his trust, Mordechai Faskowitz Supplemental Care Trust. Page 2, ¶ d indicates that it was Razel Faskowitz who created the MFSC Trust naming Miriam Greenfield as Trustee in 2006.

Page 4 shows that Mordecai was found Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity. Para. 10 relates that Marjorie died of more than 40 stab wounds.

Page 2 shows that the Estate of Marjorie Ivy attempted to reclaim all assets left to Mordecai on under the Illinois Slayer Statute which provides that “A person who intentionally and unjustifiably causes the death of another shall not receive any property, benefit or other interest by reason of the death…in any capacity.” Para 11.

Pages 9 to 11 shows that Marjorie Ivy has some 28 nieces and nephews with an interest in her Estate.
Miriam Solo then files an Affidavit with the Estate of Marjorie Ivy in which she explains: 1) she is the younger sister of Mordecai (page 15). That she met with Mordecai and Marjorie (Gayle) Ivy in June 2016 for Marjorie to “provide for each other” and “Gayle’s specific desire to add to the trust, of which I was the trustee.” ¶ 6.

Question: how is it that Marjorie dies October 13, 2013, Mordechai is put in jail, but then she and Mordechai are meeting with Miriam Solo in June of 2016 to move Marjorie’s assets into Mordechai’s estate upon her death? Why is Miriam Solo helping with this when Mordechai is her brother and she is the trustee of his “Supplemental Needs Trust”?  When Mordechai dies, his Estate flows into a Supplemental Needs Trust (again, Miriam Solo is the Trustee) (see below), but why would Marjorie Ivy want to leave her Estate to Avrohom Soloveichik whom she is not related to, upon Mordechai’s passing?

The Affidavit continues on with ¶ ¶ 8 to 33 detailing Mordecahi’s alleged schizophrenic episodes which led up to Marjorie’s death caused by over 40 stab wounds from Mordechai. The real question is, why was Miriam Solo acutely aware of Mordechai’s deteriorating mental health, but she did not make certain that he had his meds and was taking them. She was the only sibling living in Chicago at the time, and she had his POA and he was at her house sometimes during August to September 2013 and Miriam Solo knew his mental condition was extremely poor at that time, yet she did nothing about it.

The probate court, after briefing and hearing, the court then issues an Order that the Petition to disqualify Faskowitz under the Slayer Statute is denied. Page 28. This was based upon a Petition for Summary Judgment filed by Miriam Greenfield on December 7, 2017, page 53 to 63. Miriam Greenfield signed as “agent pursuant to the power of attorney for Mordechai Faskowitz”, p. 36.  How did Miriam Solo get this Power of Attorney when Mordechai has been incompetent for years and subject to shcizophrenic and dangerous episodes for most of his life?

A dispute ensues over Mordecahi being able to answer Interrogatory questions prior to hearing because he is institutionalized. Pages 29 to 34.

Page 37 show the beneficiary change request to Moredecai Faskowitz and a secondary beneficiary, Adrienne Russ, both listed as friends. This was done June 23, 2010 and not in June 2016

An Interpleader action was also filed over the the New York Life policy. Page 39.

It is not known from the court records if Mordecai’s deposition was ever taken.

It does not appear in either the court records or in the decision on Appeal, if anyone noticed that the standard to convict for an intentional homocide is “beyond a reasonable doubt’ in criminal court, but there is a much lesser standard of “more probable than not” to disinherit a person in Probate court.

By the time the Interpleader is filed, there are now 45 nieces and nephews claiming an interest in this estate. Pages 41 to 44.

The decision was based upon a Summary Judgment Motion which had argued that Res Judicata applied to the finding of NGRI, and therefore Mordecai was barred from inheriting from his stabbing victim Marjorie.

The Appellate court ruled at ¶ 30 however: A Finding of NGRI on a Charge of First Degree Murder Does Not Create an Irrebuttable Presumption Under the Slayer Statute.

The issue for Marjorie Ivy, stabbed to death over 40 times by Mordecai, was taken up on Appeal and the Illinois Appellate court ruled that the trial court’s decision that someone found “not guilty by reason of insanity” is not irrefutably covered under the Slayer Statute. They find that the use of Summary Judgment was inappropriate for the issues at hand, that is whether the killing was intentional. The court noted that admissions spoken to various doctors during examination could not be excepted from the hearsay rule and were not considered. No deposition was ever taken of Mordecai and since he died on May 15, 2019 (page 49), it is doubtful that there is any possibility of preventing his estate, his Trust, operated now by Miriam Solo, to go to the rightful heirs or the nieces and nephews of Marjorie Gayle Ivy.
No new pleadings have been filed as of that decision.  A status is set for Jan. 14, 2019.

The Appellate Court decision is located at:

Click to access 1181691.pdf

Note “Miriam F. Solo” is listed as an attorney on appeal, presumably for brother Mordechai Faskowitz. ¶ 15, “Respondent, through his agent” filed an answer to the Petitions to disinherit him under the Slayer Statute. Meaning Miriam Solo was the agent for Mordechai, but where is her Power of Attorney, when was it executed and how did she know he was in his right mind when it was executed. Or, is it a durable power of attorney that would survive Mordechai’s insanity and incompetence? In any case, Mordechai Faskowitz had been confined to the Elgin Mental Health Hospital since his criminal trial, and perhaps before that up until his death in May of 2019.

More important, the will Miriam Solo filed as Executor was prepared just days before the death of brother Mordecai and it no doubt had to be Executed and witnessed at the Elgin State Mental Hospital. Was Mordechai even competent at that time, not insane, not mentally disabled? After all these facts, that would be quite a stretch to say Mordechai was even competent to have a will. And what about the POA which was used to file all the documents and pleadings in this case? How could a POA be valid when Mordechai was regularly seeing demons and hearing voices? Was it a durable POA granted years earlier when Mordechai was more mentally stable?

And while Marjorie Ivy’s estate is purported to go to the Special Needs Trust for Mordechai Faskowitz, his will at page 45 states that his Estate will go to the Special Needs Trust for Avorihim Soloveichik, another disabled individual. In these special needs trusts, however, the beneficiaries are incapacitated or incompetent, so who is overseeing the management of these funds?

More important, it would appear that Miriam Soloveichik back in 1994 was appointed the Guardian of Avohom Soloveichik, 94 P 10177. Despite the fact she was legally required to file an annual report on the ward, as well as an accounting if the ward held any personal property, Miriam Solo has filed just two annual reports on the ward, so how is then that Miriam Solo is qualified in any manner to manage a trust with $850,000 in it for Avrohom Soloveichik, a disabled person. (https://drive.google.com/open?id=1W-CwP1zSqtSZXGDIVA88xJHy8ZKL4WOo)

2) Estate of Mordechai Faskowitz

Right before the Appellate court decision of June 26, 2019 was handed down, Mordechai Faskowitz dies on May 15, 2019, page 49, and younger sister Miriam Solo Greenfield Petitions to become his Executor.

While all along during the Probate proceedings for Marjorie Ivy in which Miriam Solo was arguing on behalf of Mordechai Faskowitz that Mordechai was hopelessly insane, seeing and hearing demons, stabbing them and skipping his meds, we find that Mordechai Faskowitz, who never gave a deposition or answered critical Interrogatories, is now able to execute a will and is suddenly of “sound mind and memory”. Page 45.

Question, which is it? Was Mordecai hopelessly schizophrenic, seeing demons, stabbing at demons, or is he of “sound mind and memory.” Who is manipulating his pleadings in court?

On page 45, Miriam Solo Greenfield is appointed Executor of his Will and his entire inheritance is amazingly provided to Avrohom Soloveichik Supplemental Needs Trust, even though Mordechai has numerous nieces and nephews and Avrohom has been, for years, placed in an institution in New York as a disabled adult.

The witnesses are illegible, and not typed into this will but appear to be Miriam Greenfield at her address 6538 N Sacramento, and an attorney friend of hers, Jonathan Shimberg, 9003 Lincolnwood Dr, Evanston, IL 60203, Page 46.

NOTE: this will, likely created by Miriam Solo, is not notarized. The names of the witnesses are not typed out. No phone numbers are emails are provided for the witnesses.

Listed as heirs on Page 51 are Avrohom Soloveichik Suppplemental Needs Trust with Miriam Soloveichik as Trustee (now listed as M. Greenfield, Trustee), together with brother Moshe Faskowitz, and sisters Michele Triester and Brandy Tuchman. On page 52 it also lists Miriam Solo Greenfield. Avrohom Soloveichik is Miriam’s eldest special needs disabled son by her first marriage.

Further provided in this estate is an Affidavit of Heirship noting that Chaim Faskowitz (DOD Aug. 1997) and Razel (Rose) Jofen (DOD Dec. 2018) are the parents of the decedent Mordechai Faskowitz. Page 47.

In this Affidavit Chaim and Razel or Rose Faskowitz had 5 children: Moshe, Mordechai, Miriam, Michele and Brandy.

2) Estate of Irving (Isaac) Faskowitz (Fisk) and Sofia in Florida

On April 8, 1999, Sofia (Fisk) Faskowitz died leaving her entire estate to her husband, Irving Fisk.Page 100 and 98.

On June 22, 1999, Irving (Isaac) (Fisk) Faskowitz died, but his will only name his wife who had predeceased him. Pages 101 and 96.

Neither of the wills executed by Sofia and Irving Fisk named any other beneficiaries other than themselves.

A probate proceeding, PC 99-307 was opened in Florida and Rose Faskowitz, mother of Miriam Faskowitz Soloveichik Greenfield, promptly filed an Affidavit of Heirship (page 65) claiming that her husband’s name was Chaim, and that he was a cousin and uncle of the decedent, Irving Faskowitz. ¶ 15. This was because the decedent’s father was Isaac Faskowitz, and Isaac’s father was Mordecai Faskowitz. Mordecai had another Son Moshe. Son Moshe married the daughter of Mordecai, or in other words, Daughter Miriam supposedly married her uncle Moshe. They had four children: Chaim, Alter Mordecai, Breina and Beila. Only Chaim had children. Chaim married the Affiant, Rose Faskowitz, and they had four children: Moshe, Miriam, Brandy and Michel. ¶ 10.

During World War II, Chaim’s entire family was in Poltusk, Poland.

The Affiant, Rose (Razel) Faskowitz, then claims the rest of the family, other than her and Chaim, perished in a Nazi concentration camp during World War II.

However, it must be noted that while ¶ 10 of the Affidavit of Rose Faskowitz lists four children (Moshe, Miriam, Brandy and Michel); note that in the Estate of Mordechai Faskowitz, Rose suddently has a 5th child–Mordecai.

On page 50-51, the Affidavit of heirship for Mordechai’s Estate clearly shows 4 siblings: Moshe, Brandy and Miriam. Apparently on January 5, 2001 Rose (Razel) Faskowitz forgot she had a 5th child.

We know that Miriam Greenfield Solo was involved in this because she filed a Consent and Waiver and acknowledged a copy of the Petition to Determine Beneficiaries and waived notice to hearing on the Petition to Determine Beneficiaries. (Page 65). She also received a copy of the Fla. ATG Petition to Set Aside Finding of Beneficiaries.  Page 82.  While brother Mordechai was remembered when he hacked his girlfriend Marjorie Gayle Ivy to death, she forgot he had to be included in this estate of alleged Uncle/Cousin Isaac Faskowitz.

Nonetheless, the Affidavit of Heirship filed by Rose (Razel) Faskowitz turns out to be utter nonsense.

On August 2, 2001, the Attorney General of Florida investigated the Probate Case of Irving (Isaac) (Fisk) Faskowitz and concluded that none of the children of Rose Faskowitz were in fact related to Irving Faskowitz, the decedent. While the Affidavit of Rose Faskowitz tells a long tale of nieces marrying their uncles (the family tree that does not branch) and harrowing escapes from Nazi occupied Europe to the US, none of that is apparently true.

From ¶ 8 of the ATG letter:

The information provided by the discovery of the decedent’s birth certificate is inconsistent with the Affidavits in support of the Petition to Determine Beneficiaries as follows:

a) the decedent’s name at birth was Isaac Faskowitz, not Irving Faskowitz, as alleged by affiants.
b) the decedent was born in the Borough of Manhattan, City of New York, State of New York; not Poland as alleged.
c) The decedent’s parents were Harry and Anne Faskowitz, not Isaac Faskowitz, as alleged.
d) The decedent did not, nor did his parents, immigrate to the United States from Poland. The decedent’s parents immigrated from Russia, and the decedent himself was born in this country. ¶ 8, p.81 ¶

It should also be noted that Isaac Faskowitz was married to Sofia Faskowitz and her death certificate says she was born in Puerto Rico and therefore was an US citizen. Nothing was said of her in the Affidavit. Most likely decedent met his wife in the large Puerto Rican community when he was young in Manhattan. The decedent was an US citizen born in New York City.

Despite the fact that the ATG of Florida researched the probate estate and found the heirs to be a fraud, no action was taken by the Florida Probate Court and on December 2006, the Estate was finally distributed with a total of $1,592,456 for 4 beneficiaries, or $398,114. Not bad for finding a similar name and cooking up affidavits.

On page 89, An agreed order was entered determining the beneficiaries to be Miriam Greenfield, Brandy Tuchman, Michel Triester and Moshe Faskowitz. No mention of brother Mordechai.

On page 91, it appears that Moshe Faskowitz, Rose Faskowitz and Dr. Jean Jofen were already to testify there were 4 children of fake Uncle/Cousin Mr. Isaac Faskowitz and not 5.

On page 93 is the Proof of service of final accounting and petition for discharge. Again, no mention of a 5th sibling in the Faskowitz sibling group. Mordechai is missing his hundreds of thousands of dollars. And Miriam Solo Soloveichik Faskowitz Greenfield is part of it.

3. Estate of Ralla Klepak

On May 3, 2019, Miriam Solo Greenfield files a Petition to become the Executor of her friend, Ralla Klepak, who passed on April 25, 2019. Page 118.

She lists the value of Ralla’s personal property at $1 million and her real estate at 2046 W. Addison Ave, Chicago for $250,000, despite the fact that Ralla’s office building, which she owns, is worth easily over one million dollars. In addition she owns a home on Addison Ave and a home in St. Petersburg, Florida.

The decedent, Ralla Klepak, has told many people that she adopted a Mexican son, however no “son” is mentioned in her will at Page 102. A Jorge Bautista at 5158 N Ashland is listed in the will, but he is not mentioned as a son. According to Instantcheckmate.com there is a person named Jorge Bautista at 5156 N Ashland and an address in Tampa, Florida. However he is 71 years old and clearly not a “son” which Ralla met and adopted at age 10 some decades back.

The bulk of the Estate is given to Miriam Solo. All the contents of Ralla’s home. Third ¶ p. 103. Jorge Bautista $500,000. Miriam Solo is given Ralla’s Puerta Del Sol South Apartment in St. Petersburg, Florida. P.105, FOURTEENTH ¶ , the rest and residue of her estate to the Ralla Klepak Trust for the Performing Arts, and Miriam Solo is to get $75,000 per year for managing the trust. Page 109, Article4 (sic). Large amounts are given to various charities on p.110. $100,000 to Victory Gardens Theater, $100,000 to Steppenwolf Theater, $100,000 to Northlight Theater, etc. Page 110

The Will appears to have been quickly drafted with tons of typos.

A typical will has the Testator initial every page of the will. No pages are initialed in this Will.

The will has an attestation clause by witnesses, but it is not notarized, as a will typically is notarized.

Sharran Greenburg is a witness, and mentioned in the will.

The will is executed 2 months before she died. Just like some others…..

4. Guardianship of Alice Gore

Cooper’s Corner show.

here is a video with a lot of detail about MS:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mG8FZhBJGXI

Bev Cooper (the host of the show) is the daughter of 99 year old Alice Gore.
Miriam Solo (aka Soloveichik, Greenfield, Fisk, Faskowicz), was the Guardian ad Litem for Alice Gore.

11:18 – MS brought false charges against Bev Cooper and obtained a false Order of Protection
Bev Cooper had to pay to see her own mother at Warren Barr Pavillion, a nursing home 20 miles from Bev Cooper’s home. Bev Cooper loved to take care of her mother and told Miriam Solo she wanted to take her mom home and take care of mom — for free.

12:19 – Nursing home is owned by a cousin of MS

13:10 $1.5 million is billed by attorneys in fees during 3 years of guardianship

13:15 – Alice Gore loves to eat, but against her will a GI tube is inserted so she can never eat again.

14:40 – MS chooses a mentally ill granddaughter, with multiple psych hospitalizations to become the guardian of Alice Gore, over the objections and petitions of Bev Cooper to become the guardian of her own mother

15:50 – Bev Cooper cannot visit her own mother

16:08 – Bev Cooper states than MS is an animal, inhumane, and evil

In conclusion

There are now two wills (Klepak, Mordechai, Ivy) which all have the following similarities:
1) not notarized, witness signatures have no typed or printed names next to them so their names are easily read and known to others.
2) the decedent dies days or weeks after the will is allegedly executed (Mordechai, Klepak)
3) disabled individuals are used to move substantial amounts of money via a Trust mechanism, which is essentially a private device with no court oversight and little accountability, especially where the beneficiary is mentally deficient or incompetent. Who is looking out for this disabled person? Where is the accountability and oversight when the Beneficiary is disabled or mentally infirm himself?

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

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

From Ken Ditkowsky–A system with many working parts, working to commit fraud on the public and the disabled and Elderly

The Total Pharmacy/Omnicare venture referred to supra is a look in the LOOKING GLASS. 
The Enron scandal is a parallel to the health care/nursing home situation.   The miscreants are clever and much smarter than most of criminals that the government has to deal with.    The scandal has multi levels:
  1. Political.   Key to the operation of the fraud is an alliance between Establishment political people, judicial people, and the multi-levels of the fraud.   Each locality appears to have a similar structure and very strong tie ins to the dominate political party.
  2. Judicial.   Keeping the facilities occupied and generating money requires tie-ins with corrupt judges and judicial elite.    Here in Illinois we saw how Jerome Larkin and the IARDC react to the call from ‘on high’   Cynthia Farenga saw a post in PROBATE SHARKS calling for an HONEST INVESTIGATION and the miscreants prostituted themselves to attempt to stop the call.  Adam Stern’s job was to call the offending lawyer not part of the scheme and threaten him (myself) with disbarrment.  Judge Connor’s part was to keep the Mary Sykes case wired (she said in a deposition if there were any “problems” with the case, she would dismiss it, start over, and come to the same conclusions and issue the same orders).  Her role was also to make sure Mary went to a “go-to doctor”  to fill out a CCP211 declaration of incompetency.  When she was told the Mary’s personal physician would not sign one, she replied, “find a doctor that will.”  The presiding judges closed their eyes and signed whatever orders were necessary to enhance the wealth of the program.   In the Gore case – no depravity was too low for the judge – even an expedition into the mouth of the elderly ward to get a few grains of gold was acceptable conduct and 29 gold teeth from a 99 year old woman were pulled and a feeding tube inserted against her will because she ate too slowly.   Indeed, the collection of gold from grandmother’s mouth according to Jerome Larkin and his 18 USCA 371 co-conspirators was in the best traditions of the Illinois Bar.
  3. Structural.     The subversion of professionals is old hat and as old as the hills.   Pass a dollar bill under the nose of some professionals and you own his/her for life.    The miscreants are too clever and they no longer need to use dollars – nursing home beds, opportunity to rob an estate, opportunity to be a guardian of an estate and steal, and a horde of sundry payments, mortgages, vacations, opportunities etc

A sheltered care facility has numerous operations.    The facility, for instance purchases pharmaceuticals.     This – Esformes created TOTAL CARE which just happens to have a monopoly on all the facilities drug purchases.

By buying in bulk for the controlled facilities the price is substantially reduced.   Indeed, with the over prescription of drugs by controlled doctors a medium size nursing home has a higher sale volume of these substances than most family pharmacies.   Indeed, the warehousing of the elderly requires keeping the elderly subdued and quiet.   Thus, linking 30 – 300 Esformes controlled facilities together in a buying group is pure money!
Of course, Esformes is too smart to be openly involved in the operation – thus, the operating partner looks around for a youngster, the more naive the better, and he is lured into the position of Chief Operating Officer.    The swelled head augmented by the flattery, large salary, fancy car, etc., makes this recent graduate or cultivated fool perfect.   In the pharmacy one of the dupes dispenses chemicals like corn flakes and if the face that the FDA, IRS, FBI, et al. sees.   The shares of the company (Total) are in nominee names = by and large –
Charity is a big part of the issue.   Everyone contributes.   The contribution is to a duly recognized charity.    The Clinton Tax Return showed a million dollar donation to a Clinton Charity.    The Esformes tax return probably shows a contribution to a Esformes Charity.    Funds are disbursed so as to get the maximum personal benefit.    (I would not be shocked to find out that Donald Trumps disbursement was in a similar manner.) Giving makes certain community operations dependent — (I should not have to explain further)

 

Each operation works essentially the same way, including management, nursing care, linen supply, real estate management, Utilities, professional operations, *****.     Even the billing is outsourced to a related entity which is independently controlled by Esformes Or some other mogul.   These operations even have independent offices and in many of the situations the CEO or person designated to go to jail is a total stranger to the group.     An O’Reilly being the CEO of an Esformes- Enron style corporation is not an anomoly.

The indictment of Philip Esformes found at www.justice.gove/opa/file87o8306/download will give you an idea of what the government investigation has uncovered to date.

I ran across an early version of this scenario in the BURT MORGAN CASE.

Civil RICO–From the Congressional Records–RICO for probate actions, it is possible?

Speaker: Mr. CONYERS

Text

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Espy). Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, which I am privileged to Chair, has been carefully looking into calls for Civil RICO reform by various segments of the business community, chiefly the securities and banking industries and the accounting profession. I rise to discuss the development and rationale behind the current untenable position of the Department of Justice in this most important debate.
I
On September 30, 1985, Phillip D. Brady, acting Assistant Attorney General, of the Department informed me by letter that a prior criminal conviction requirement would not be “the best approach to limiting the scope of Civil RICO.”
On July 22, 1986, Assistant Attorney John R. Bolton, of the Department informed by letter the Honorable Thomas P. O’Neill, Jr., Speaker, House of Representatives, that a prior criminal conviction requirement “would best respond to the increasingly troublesome issues that civil RICO” has raised.
What accounts for the dramatic turn around in the official position of the Department?
No new facts came to light between September and July, as these remarks will demonstrate.
No new policy considerations were identified between September and July, as these remarks will demonstrate.
The best explanation lies in a change of personalities — the substitution at the position of the Deputy Attorney General in the Department for J.D. Lowell Jensen, a widely experienced Federal and State prosecutor, of Arnold I. Burns, a prominent New York corporations and securities lawyer.
What is the significance of these conflicting recommendations?
II
In 1970, we enacted the Organized Crime Control Act, title IX of which is known as the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § § 1961-68 [RICO]. The act grew out of hearings held by the late Senator John L. McClellan, who was, along with Senator Roman L. Hruska, and Congressman Richard L. Poff, now a justice of the Virginia Supreme Court, principal sponsors of the 1970 legislation. The McClellan committee’s hearings in the Senate demonstrated beyond serious argument that existing Federal and State law was inadequate in dealing with the illicit activities of the Mafia, paticularly as it had corrupted or taken over legitimate businesses, unions, and units of State and local government.
In light of those hearings, the President’s Crime Commission, in 1967 recommended that antitrust-typecivil remedies be adapted to the activities of the underworld. Similarly, the American Bar Association, after careful study, called for the authorization of treble-damage relief for private parties suing underRICO. The National Chamber of Commerce and the Judicial Conference of the United States also voiced support for RICO. The President, too, endorsed the concept of private treble-damage actions. For these reasons, the 1970 act included provisions, not only for Government criminal and civil actions, but also private claims for treble damages for victims of specified conduct — termed predicate offenses — involving violence, the provision of illegal goods and services, governmental and union corruption and, last but not least, commercial and other forms of criminal fraud.
After vigorous debate, we specifically decided not to limit the 1970 act to the activities of organized crime figures. The inadequacies of Federal and State law identified in the study of Mafia prosecutions existed in all cases involving sophisticated forms of criminal behavior. Then-Congressman Poff observed:
[E]very effort … [has been] made to produce a strong and effective tool with which to combat organized crime — and at the same time deal fairly with all who might be affected … [by the] legislation — whether part of the crime syndicate or not. (116 Cong. Rec. 25,204 (1970).)
Since 1970, 27 States have enacted similar legislation; it is pending in another half dozen legislatures.
The Department of Justice has now recommended to us, however, that private civil RICO suits be circumscribed by the unprecedented device of a prior criminal conviction limitation; that is, before aperson actually injured in his business or property by a violation of RICO could civilly sue for treble damages, he would have to show that the defendant had already been prosecuted and convicted criminally of either RICO or at least two of its predicate offenses. I note, too, that provisions in bills introduced by our distinguished colleagues Congressman Frederick Boucher (H.R. 2983) and Senator Howard Metzenbaum (S. 1523), would similarly make the recovery of treble damages under RICOsubject to the showing of a prior criminal conviction on the part of the defendant.
These remarks consider and reject as profoundly unwise these legislative recommendations.
The Supreme Court in SEDIMA S.P.R.L. v. IMREX CO. INC. (473 U.S. 479, 490 n.9 (1985)) aptly summarized the crucial objections to the criminal conviction limitation:
It arbitrarily restricts the availability of private actions, for law breakers are often not apprehended and convicted. Even if a conviction has been obtained, it is unlikely that a private plaintiff will be able to recover for all of the acts constituting an extensive “pattern”, or that multiple victims will all be able to obtain redress. This is because criminal convictions are often limited to a small portion of the actual or possible charges. The … [limitation] would also create peculiar incentives for plea-bargaining to non-predicate-act offenses so as to ensure immunity from a later civil suit. If nothing else, a criminal defendant might plead to a tiny fraction of counts, so as to limit future civil liability. In addition, the dependence of potential civil litigants on the initiation and success of a criminal prosecution could lead to unhealthy private pressures on prosecutors and to self-serving trial testimony, or at least accusations thereof. Problems would also arise if some or all of the convictions were reversed on appeal. Finally, the compelled wait for the completion of criminal proceedings would result in pursuit of stale claims, complex statute of limitations problems, or the wasteful splitting of actions, with resultant claim and issue preclusion complications.
It is important for the development of sound legal policy, however, to review in detail the justifications offered by the Department for its new recommendations and to set out why they should be rejected. It will follow, too, that the similar recommendations contained in H.R. 2983 and S. 1523 ought to be rejected.
III
Assistant Attorney General John R. Bolton submitted on July 22, 1986, a proposed bill to the Senate and the House to amend section 1964(c) of title 18, United States Code — the provision in the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act [RICO],which permits Federal treble damage suits for injuries caused by RICO violations. The Department’s recommendations are contained in S. 635 in this Congress. The text of Mr. Bolton’s letter follows these remarks. The proposed legislation would amendRICO to require proof of a prior criminal conviction as an essential element of a private civil RICOsuit for treble damages. Mr. Bolton suggests that this approach will best respond to the “troublesome issues” that civil RICO litigation has raised over the past several years.
Mr. Bolton is profoundly wrong. While reform may be needed of aspects of civil RICO litigation, Mr. Bolton’s proposal is a remedy that far exceeds in scope any demonstrated abuse. Those who suggest that civil RICO litigation reflects abuse have the burden of proving that:
First, a substantial number of abusive suits are being filed.
Second, existing safeguards against such suits are not adequate to remedy them.
Third, new safeguards against such suits that are adequate cannot be designed, and
Fourth, the detriment from these suits outweighs the benefit from legitimate suits.
None of these burdens has been met. (See Goldsmith, “Civil RICO Abuse: The allegations in Context,” 1968 Brigham Young University Law Rev. 55, 103 (“Upon review *** RICO abuse is not a serious problem for our legal system so long as counsel and courts appreciate the utility of existing remedial procedures. Accordingly *** Congress *** should recognize that abuse arguments are more likely motivated by hostility to the RICO remedy”).)
Mr. Bolton’s recommendations would apply to all private civil RICO litigations, not just that which may be “troublesome.” A prior criminal conviction requirement would, in effect, eliminate virtually all private claims for relief under civil RICO. It would deny to all deserving plaintiffs — as well as those who might abuse the statute — their most effective remedy. As such, it should be rejected.
IV
ACivil RICO does not discriminate on the basis of ethnic or social position; anyone who engages in the elements of criminal fraud can and should be sued under section 1964(c):
First, private RICO suits have not achieved their intended purpose as supplements to the federal government’s criminal enforcement efforts against organized crime … Fewer than ten percent of privatecivil RICO actions have been based on what is ordinarily considered to be organized crime activity. Instead, the vast majority of actions has arisen out of commonplace commercial transactions allegedly involving fraud on the part of businesses and individuals that have no connection to organized crime.
Mr. Bolton’s assertion that few private RICO actions are based on “what is ordinarily considered to be organized crime” has about it a touch of ethnic and class bias; it also displays a lack of understanding of “organized crime.” No person’s name need end in a vowel or his collar be blue to violate RICO. As Justice White pointed out in the Supreme Court’s Sedima decision, “(L)egitimate’ *** enterprises *** enjoy neither inherent incapacity for criminal activity nor immunity from its consequences” (473 U.S. at 499).
During the RICO enactment debates, Congressman Poff responded to a query concerning the lack of references in RICO to organized crime by stating:
The gentleman [Congressman Mikva] inquired rhetorically as to why no effort was made to define organized crime in this bill. It is true that there is no organized crime definition in many parts of the bill. This is, in part, because it is probably impossible precisely and definitively to define organized crime. But if it were possible, I ask my friend, would he not be the first to object to such a system? (116 Cong. Rec. 35,204 (1970)).
Dishonest corporate officials and securities dealers are just as capable of larcenous conduct as Mr. Bolton’s “mobsters,” and their victims are just as deserving of relief under civil RICO. Victims of such crime rightly care little that their life savings are stolen by mobsters wearing black shirts and white ties or by accountants while dressed in Brooks Bros. suits and white collars. RICO was consciously written to apply equally to anyone who violated it.
No one ought to deny that major corporations in fact engage in illegal practices, including fraud. Asurvey of 1,043 major corporations between 1970 and 1980 indicated that 117 had significant convictions or consent decrees for 98 antitrust violations; 28 cases of kickbacks, bribery, or illegal rebates; 21 instances of illegal political contributions; 11 cases of fraud; and 5 cases of tax evasion. (Ross “How Lawless Are Big Companies” Fortune, Dec. 1, 1980, at 57.)
Commercial fraud is a serious national problem, one that costs businesses and consumers billions of dollars every year. (United States Chamber of Commerce, “White Collar Crime: Everybody’s Loss” (1974)). All too often, it is a “commonplace commercial transaction,” and combating it is one of the most important uses for civil RICO.
Writing in 1967, the President’s Crime Commission, the studies of which lead to RICO, observed:
[W]hite-collar crime, is now commonly used to designate those occupational crimes committed in the course of their work by persons of high status and social repute *** [who] are only rarely dealt with through the full level of criminal sanctions *** .
During the last few centuries economic life has become vastly more complex. Individual families or groups of families are not self-sufficient; they rely for the basic necessities of life on thousands or even millions of different people, each with a specialized function, many of whom live hundreds or thousands of miles away. * * * * *
Serious erosion of morals accompanies [the] violation[s] of [white collar offenders]. [Those who so] flout the law set an example for other business and influence individuals, particularly young people, to commit other kinds of crime on the ground that everybody is taking what he can get. (The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society 47-48 (1967))
The Commission also commented:
[F]raud is *** [an] offense whose impact is not well conveyed by police statistics. *** Fraud is especially vicious when it attacks, as it so often does, the poor or those who live on the margin of poverty. Expensive nostrums for incurable diseases, home improvements frauds, frauds involving the sale or repair of cars and other criminal schemes create losses which are not only sizable in gross but are also significant and possibly devastating for individual victims” (ID. at 33-34.)
See also FURMAN v. CIRRITO, 741 F. 2d. 524, 528-29 (2nd Cir. 1984) (Pratt, J.):
Despite the clarity of congress’s language [in drafting RICO] defendants argue that since RICO‘s primary purpose is to eradicate organized crime, it is [not] directed *** against businessmen engaged in garden variety fraud *** . While RICO‘s primary focus may have been on organized crime, when considering the statute congress also recognized that fraud is a persuasive problem throughout our society *** which causes billions of dollars in loss each year *** Congress further acknowledged that existing state and federal law was not capable of dealing with this problem. * * * * *
When congress provided severe penalties, both civil and criminal, for conducting the affair of an“enterprise” through a “pattern of racketeering activity,” it provided no exceptions for businessmen, for white collar workers, for bankers, or for stockbrokers. If the conduct of such people can sometime fairly be characterized as “garden variety fraud,” we can only conclude that by the RICO statute congress has provided an additional means to weed that “garden” of its fraud.
B. Stories of Civil RICO abuse are exaggerated; existing safeguards can eliminate specious suits; more safeguards can be implemented. A few instances of abuse do not justify effectively eliminating the claim for relief.
*** unanticipated applications of the statue have occurred in cases involving claims of sexual harassment, disputes over the leadershp of a synagogue, and routine divorce controversies.
Mr. Bolton trots out exceptional horror stories about the misuse of civil RICO, without telling us that such specious claims are usually disposed of at the pleadings stage. In fact, Department of Justice studies show that 61 percent of all RICO cases prior to July 1985 were decided in favor of defendants. (Testimony of Assistant Attorney General Stephen S. Trott, Oversight on Civil RICO, Hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, 99th Cong. 1st Sess. at 127 (1985) (hereinafter Trott)). If anything, these data show, not only that existing remedies for abuse are working, but also that district courts are manifesting a hostility to civil RICO litigation not warranted by its text, legislative history, or purpose. Particular classes of claims, moreover, could be excluded from RICO without excising other claims that are more substantial. Each of Mr. Bolton’s “troublesome” categories could be excepted from the act’s jurisdiction without impact on the general operation of the statute. How then may Bolton’s general attack on RICO be justified, unless he is more concerned about giving victims remedies, which might curtail corporate abuse, than curtailing plaintiffs, who might abuse civil RICO?
Plaintiffs may, of course, seek to abuse civil RICO, as they may seek to abuse any statute, including the anti-trust or securities statutes, but there are mechanisms already available to curtail such abuse — in the Model Code of Professional Responsibility, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and in the tort law claim of abuse of process. The solution to meritless litigation lies, therefore, not in imposing additional requirements for establishing plaintiff’s prima facie case, but in using existing rules and procedures to discourage abusive litigation. If the existing rules are inadequate, the appropriate solution is to reform the remedies, not redraft RICO, because the problem of meritless actions — whatever its scope — extend beyond RICO to all civil actions. (See HOOVER v. RONWIN 104 S.Ct. 1989, 2012 (1984) (Stevens, J. dissenting) (“Frivolous cases should be treated as exactly that, and not as occasions for fundamental shifts in legal doctrine. Our legal system has developed procedures for speedily disposing of unfound claims; if they are inadequate to protect [individuals] from vexatious litigation, then there is something wrong with those procedures, not with the law.”)) Mr. Bolton, however, would eliminate civil RICO abuse through a prior criminal conviction requirement. Many argue that personal injury lawyers file specious claims, but no one seriously suggests that a defendant should first be convicted of murder before anyone could sue him for wrongful death. Perspective is called for. Our society knows no mark of shame more stigmatizing than that of Cain, yet homicide may be both murder and wrongful death. (HALBERSTAM v. WELCH, 705 F2d 472 (D.C. Cir. 1983)). Traditionally, civil recovery for wrongful death having criminal characteristics may be obtained without showing a prior criminal conviction or meeting an increased burden of proof. (See, e.g., LOUISVILLE EVANSVILLE AND ST. LOUIS R.R. v. CLARKE, 152 U.S. 230, 235-42 (1984) (“wholly civil in character”). See WATSON v. ADAMS, 187 Ala. 490, 494, 65 So. 528, 533 (1914) (wrongful death) (“Great as the love of money may be in some human beings, it cannot be presumed that to be held liable for damages is, to the ordinary man, the equivalent of the impending, unless diverted, exaction of his freedom or his life *** “)). Similarly, murder may be an issue in the imposition of a constructive trust or the voiding of bequest, yet a conviction is not required, and the homicide may be shown by a preponderance of the evidence. See, e.g., SMALL v. ROCKFELD, 66 N.J. 231, 245, 330 A.2d 335, 343 (1974) (no conviction required); BURNS v. UNITED STATES, 200 F.2d 106, 107 (4th Cir. 1952) (acquittal in criminal case not defense in civil case where murder at issue); Uniform Probate Code 2-803(e) (1983) (conviction for murder not required and killing may be shown by preponderance of the evidence); Restatement of the Law of Restitution § 187, comment f. (1937)) No sound reason exists for circumscribing RICO in afashion that no other claims for relief in Federal law are similarly circumscribed, including anti-trust and securities.
C. Civil RICO‘s use against business fraud is entirely consistent with the language of the statute and with congressional intent.
[S]ection 1964(c) *** has lead to the unnecessary and unwise federalization of an area of the law that is best reserved to the states *** . We do not believe that, when it enacted RICO, Congress thought it necessary to create a general federal remedy for fraud, or that it intended to do so.
Mr. Bolton makes a completely unsubstantiated claim that Congress did not intend RICO to be ageneral federal fraud remedy. He should read the statute. “The language of *** [RICO] *** [is] the most reliable evidence of [congressional] intent *** (UNITED STATES v. TURKETTE, 452 U.S. 576,593 (1981)). Congress included mail fraud, wire fraud, travel fraud, and bankruptcy fraud in its list ofRICO‘s predicate offenses. Then under section 1964(c), it granted a civil claim for relief to “any person injured in his business or property *** .” through the commission of those offenses in violation ofRICO. The statement of findings and purposes of Pub. L. 91-452 specifically stated that sophisticated forms of “crime in the United States *** annually drain [ *** ] billions of dollars from America’s economy by *** the illegal use of force, fraud, and corruption *** .” (84 Stat. 922-236 (1970)).
Mr. Bolton should also have looked at the legislative history of the bill. Some of the Congressmen, who voted against RICO, shared his objections to it — that its application was not limited to “organized crime,” and that it extended federal jurisdiction to commercial fraud cognizable under State law. Congressman Mikva, for example, pointed out “[w]hat we have done in one fell swoop *** is incorporated as a part of the Federal law all of the offenses which heretofore have traditionally been treated as under State and local jurisdictions.” (116 Cong. Rec. 35,205 (1970)). Mr. Bolton’s federalism concerns would not ring false if he were not also one of the principal forces behind Federal tort reform and similar national efforts to circumscribe local products liability litigation. He is consistent in his principles only to the degree that he always wishes to undercut plaintiff’s rights to recover for their injuries with the best remedy and forum possible. It is abundantly clear that Congress fully intended, after specific debate, to have RICO apply beyond any limiting concept like “organized crime” or “racketeering” and, over specific objections raising issues of Federal-State relations and crowded court dockets, Congress deliberately extended RICO to the general field of commercial and other fraud.
D. Civil RICO is an important safeguard for the general public; other criminal and civil sanctions are often inadequate.
*** There is no need for a general federal fraud remedy. Persons who engage in serious fraud can be, and frequently are, prosecuted for criminal offenses under both federal and state statutes. In addition, federal laws and judicial decisions afford civil redress for specific types of fraudulent conduct, such as securities fraud, and state statutes and common law principles permit civil recovery for those species of fraud not covered by federal law. We know of no shortcomings in these various provisions such as would warrant adoption of a broad federal remedy for fraud.
Notwithstanding Mr. Bolton, a dire need exists for a general Federal fraud remedy. Congress enactedcivil RICO knowing full well that traditional remedies were inadequate. (See 84 Stat. 923 (1970) (“the sanctions and remedies available *** are unnecessarily limited in scope and impact”)).
For example, bank fraud, particularly by insiders, is deeply disturbing. In the 1980-81 period, the failure of 105 banks and savings and loans cost $1 billion. Roughly one-half of the bank failures and one-quarter of the savings and loan collapses had as a major contributing factor criminal activities by insiders, few of whom, according to the findings of a study of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Consumer and Monetary Affairs, chaired by our distinguished colleague, Doug Barnard, were adequately sanctioned, criminally or civilly. (See Federal Response to Criminal Misconduct and Insider Abuse in the Nations’ Financial Institutions, H.R. Rep. No. 1137 98th Cong. 2d Sess. 5 (1984).) The Barnard committee observed:
Despite enormous losses, neither the banking nor the criminal justice systems impose effective sanctions for punishment to deter white-collar bank fraud. The few insiders who are singled out for civilsanctions by the banking agencies are usually either fined de minimis amounts or simply urged to resign. The few who are criminally prosecuted usually serve little, if any, time in prison for thefts that often cost millions of dollars.
Most banks, in fact, do not have the financial resources or the expertise to protect themselves from sophisticated schemes to defraud, according to recent testimony of the FDIC before the Senate Judiciary Committee. (Testimony of Daniel W. Persinger, Deputy General Counsel, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Oversight on Civil RICO Suits, Hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, 99th Cong. 1st Sess. at 216 (1985)). Ninety-seven percent of the federally insured banks have assets of less than $500 million; 84 percent less than $100 million; 66 percent less than $50 million.
Ultimately, many of these costs of fraud are passed on to the rest of us. Insurance fraud, for example, annually costs $11 billion, and since the typical insurance company must generate $1.25 in premiums for every dollar it pays out, the bill that the Nation must meet amounts to $13.75 billion. (N.Y. Times, July 6, 1980, at 17, col. 1) Indeed, the “insurance crisis” that is leading legislators to rewrite our liability laws to curtail litigation abuse might be better dealt with by enforcing vigorously our laws against fraud. (See generally N.Y. Times, March 2, 1986, at 20, col. 1 (industry said to lose $5.5 billion or make $1.7 billion); The Explosion in Liability Lawsuits Is Nothing But a Myth, Bus. Wk., April 21, 1986, at 24, col. 1)
Leaving aside the question of Mr. Bolton’s “serious” fraud (as opposed to what?), it is clear that white-collar criminals are rarely prosecuted, and seldom convicted, for a plethora of reasons completely unrelated to their guilt or innocence: lack of prosecutorial resources, plea-bargaining, defendants turning states evidence, and legal technicalities. J. Conklin, Illegal But Not Criminal: Business Crime in America 129 (1977) rightly concludes:
[T]he criminal justice system treats business offenders with leniency. Prosecution is uncommon, conviction is rare, and harsh sentences almost non existent. At most, a businessman or corporation is fined; few individuals are imprisoned and those who are serve very short sentences. Many reasons exist for this leniency. The wealth and prestige of businessmen, their influence over the media, the trend toward more lenient punishment for all offenders, the complexity and invisibility of many business crimes, the existence of regulatory agencies and inspectors who seek compliance with the law rather than punishment of violators all help explain why the criminal justice system rarely deals harshly with businessmen. This failure to punish business offenders may encourage feelings of mistrust toward community morality, and general social disorganization in the general population. Discriminatory justice may also provide lower class and working class individuals with justifications for their own violation of the law, and it may provide political radicals with a desire to replace a corrupt system in which equal justice is little more than a spoken idea.
Indeed, skillfully plea bargaining can easily circumvent the treble damage provision entirely. Ivan Boesky, the most egregious insider trader in history, pled guilty not to insider trading — a securities law predicate offense under RICO — but to conspiracy to file a false statement with the SEC, 18 U.S.C. § § 371, 1001 which is not a RICO predicate offense.
Should Mr. Bolton’s proposal — or Congressman Boucher’s — or Senator Metzenbaum’s — pass, avariety of factors could protect an otherwise guilty defendant from a treble damage civil RICO claim, and often leave deserving plaintiffs with remedies that allow recovery only for actual damages. That way, at worst, the defrauder would have to return what he had taken. Compared to the deterrent value and adequate compensation features of the treble damages provision of civil RICO, current law — without RICO — would in fact have serious shortcomings.
E. Civil RICO does not undermine other remedies; it buttresses them.
*** The increasing use of section 1964(c) as a federal fraud remedy threatens to undermine carefully crafted and well established federal statutory schemes that have been developed to regulate the securities, commodities, banking, accounting, and savings and loan industries.
In arguing that section 1964(c) undercuts the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and other Federal statutes, Mr. Bolton, as in the case of others, who should know better, simply misreads the law. For an impression is apparently widespread, particularly among the securities industry, that RICO simply “overlaps” all securities fraud. Justice Marshall in dissent in Sedima expressed a similar concern (473 U.S. at 505) (“virtually eliminates decades of legislative and judicial developments of private civil remedies under the Federal securities laws”). Nothing could be further from the truth. RICO says “offenses” involving “fraud in the sale of securities” “punishable under any law of the United States.” 18 U.S.C. 1961 (1)(D) (1982). “Offenses” means criminal offenses. (Black’s Law Dictionary at 975 (5th ed. 1979). See TRANE v. O’CONNOR SECURITIES, 701 F.2d 26, 29 (2d Cir. 1983) (“obviously refers to criminal punishment”); DAN RIVER, INC. v. ICAHN, 701 F.2d 278, 291 (5th Cir. 1983) (“criminal intent is *** necessary in either mail fraud or securities fraud [under RICO.]”)). Accordingly, only the criminal fraud provisions of the securities acts fall within RICO. (See, e.g., Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. § 77x (1982) (“willfully”); Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78ff (1982) (“willfully”)). Merely negligent conduct or a transaction that only operates as a fraud does not fall within the statute. (See AARON v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMM., 446 U.S. 681, 701-02 (1980) (intent to defraud rather than negligence in 10(b) (’34) or 17a(1) (’33), but not untrue statements or admission or transactions that operate as a fraud 17(a)(2) or (3) (’33))). Such anoverlap between statutes is neither “unusual nor unfortunate.” (S.E.C. v. NATIONAL SECURITIES, INC., 393 U.S. 453, 468 (1969)). Indeed, the securities acts themselves envision it. (See, e.g., Section 28(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78 bb(a) (1982) (“rights and remedies” “in addition” to “all other” that might exist)). RICO, too, recognizes the overlap. (84 Stat. 947 (1970) (“Nothing in this title shall supersede any provision of Federal, State or other law imposing criminal penalties or affording civil remedies in addition to those provided for in this title”)).
That RICO supplements our basic securities laws, more over, is hardly lamentable. The funding of the Securities and Exchange Commission, for example, has increased since 1979, but its staffing has decreased, and its pending investigations are down. Yet the number of shares traded on the New York Stock Exchange has shot up 300 percent 1977; the number of first time registrants has increased by 260 percent. Even among legitimate brokerage firms, the incentive structure for commissions encourages a fraud known as “churning,” trading stock without regard for investment objectives. Similarly, the futures industry in the United States has grown tremendously in recent years. The 139.9 million futures contracts traded in 1983 represents a level of trading activity 15 times greater than that reached on 1968. The value of contracts traded exceeds $5 trillion a year. Nevertheless, the resources of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission have remained relatively constant. It has been suggested, that the industry is a scandal waiting to happen, for the Commission “is thoroughly out-gunned in the ongoing battle against commodity fraud.” Senate Comm. on Governmental Affairs, Commodity Investment Fraud, S. Rep. No. 97-495, 97th cong., 2d Sess. 10 (1983).
In addition, accounting firms, once thought to play the role of outside watchdogs, are under heavy competitive pressure to go along with questionable annual reports, and they are increasingly losing their independence, since they also offer management consulting advice. (See, All Eyes on Accountants, Time, April 21, 1986 p. 61.) “After a spectacular string of corporate failures and financial scandals in recent years, the industry that is supposed to audit company books and sniff out chicanery” (Id.) is itself coming under close scrutiny. Since 1980, the Big Eight have had to pay more than $180 million to settle liability suits. No wonder that the accounting profession is a major contributor to the political campaigns of those in the forefront of the effort to exonerate RICO. (See, Rolling Back RICO, National Journal, Sept. 6, 1986 p. 2114-2115.) Indeed, Theodore C. Barreaux, vice president of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, attributes the Department of Justice’s switch to aseries of meetings between accounting institute lawyers and Department officials. (Id. at 2115.)
Joseph Connor, chairman of Price Waterhouse acknowledges: “We’ve failed in our public duty. We should sound the drum when a company is on the brink of disaster.” (Time, supra note 16, at 61.) Spectacular failures include the collapse of E.S.M. Government Securities Inc., which fell after falsified books that concealed millions of dollars of losses from investors were made possible by a bribed accounting firm auditor. Investors with accounts at the firm, including as many as a dozen municipalities, lost as much as $315 million. The collapse of E.S.M. also led to the insolvency of Home State Savings Bank in Ohio and the shutdown of 69 privately insured thrift institutions. The accounting firm of Grant Thornton recently reached a $22.5 million settlement with the American Savings and Loan Association, which lost $55.3 million; it also reached a $50 million settlement with 17 municipal government, which sued under RICO. (New York Times, Sept. 17, 1986, p. 48 col. 6). More than a little historical irony is present in Mr. Bolton’s defense of the securities statutes. Like RICO, when the 1933 act was passed, it, too, was attacked as antibusiness. (See, J. Seligman, “The Transformation of Wall Street” 79 (1983), quoting then-Prof. Felix Frankfurter: “The leading financial law firms who have been systematically carrying on a campaign against [the Securities Act of 1933] have been seeking — now that they and their financial clients have come out of their storm cellar of fear — not to improve but to chloroform the act. They evidently assume that the public is unaware of the sources of the issues that represent the boldest abuses of fiduciary responsibility.”) History repeats itself.
F. Civil RICO does not threaten legitimate businesses; it works against businesses who engage in criminal fraud and protects law abiding businesses from illegal acts by others.
Equally serious is the threat of civil RICO liability to legitimate businesses engaged in purely commercial transactions. Section 1964(c) permits virtually any legitimate business enterprise to be charged with “racketeering” and threatened with a judgement for treble damages and attorneys’ fees, simply on the basis of an ordinary commercial dispute. Civil RICO skews dispute resolution in commercial cases, extorts settlements and increases legal fees, which cost ultimately will be passed on the purchasers of the goods or services.
Mr. Bolton speaks of civil RICO‘s “threat” to “legitimate” business. To refer to a business as “legitimate” without inquiring into the truth of charges brought against it, begs the question (SEE MYERS v. BETHLEHEM SHIPBUILDING CORP., 303 U.S. 41, 51-52 (1938) (Brandeis, J.) (“Lawsuits *** often prove to [be] groundless but no way has been discovered for relieving a defendant from the necessity of a trial to establish the fact.”)) Similarly, the second circuit suggested that civil RICO suits against “respected and legitimate enterprises” where”extraordinary, if not outrageous.” (SEDIMA S.D.R.L. v. IMREX CO., INC., 741 F.2d 482, 495-96 (2nd Cir. 1984), rev’d, 473 U.S. 479 (1985)). Included among the cited legitimate enterprises was E.F. Hutton. (But see “Why the E.F. Hutton Scandal May Be Far From Over,” (Hutton pleads guilty to 2,000 counts of mail fraud in a multi-million dollar bank scam); HAROCO INC. v. AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK AND TRUST CO., 747 F.2d 384, 395 n.14 (7th Cir. 1984), aff’d, 473 U.S. 606 (1985) (“[T]he White-collar crime alleged in some RICO complaints against ‘legitimate’ business is in some ways at least as disturbing. *** “)
Contrary to Mr. Bolton’s statement, civil RICO does not, however, apply to “ordinary commercial disputes,” but rather to criminal fraud. While the scope of mail and wire fraud statutes is wide, no honest person need fear a civil suit under RICO based on those offenses, for both require fraudulent intent and good faith is a complete defense. (DURLAND v. UNITED STATES, 161 U.S. 306,314 (1986)) UNITED STATES v. MARTIN-IRIGONA, 684 f. 2d. 485, 492-493 (7th Cir. 1982); DAN RIVER INC. v. ICAHN, 701 F. 2d 278, 289-91 (4th Cir. 1983)). RICO does not provide for constructive fraud, negligence or strict liability.
If, on the other hand, businessmen engage in fraud in the course of “purely commercial transactions,”civil RICO can and should be used against them. Section 1964(c) does permit any “legitimate” business enterprise to be charged with “racketeering,” but an honest businessman need not settle at the sight of a civil RICO suit; the plaintiff must still prove his case. The treble damage provisions incivil RICO do not, in short, “extort” settlements, they simply put a plaintiff with a good case in a good position. If our society authorizes the recovery of not only actual damages for deliberate antisocial conduct engaged in for profit, it lets the perpetrator know that if he is caught, he need only return the misappropriated sums. If he is not caught, he may keep his ill-gotten gains, and if he is caught and sued, he knows that he may be able to defeat part of the damage claims or at least compromise it. The balance of economic risk under traditional simple damage recovery provides, therefore, little disincentive to those who engage in such conduct. Indeed, the seventh circuit was closer to the mark when it observed in AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK AND TRUST CO. OF CHICAGO v. HAROCO that “the delays, expense and uncertainties of litigation often compel plaintiffs to settle completely valid claims for a mere fraction of their value. By adding to the settlement value of such valid claims in certain cases clearly involving criminal conduct, RICO may arguably promote more complete satisfaction of plaintiff’s claims without facilitating indefensible windfalls.” (747 f.2d 384, 399 n.16 (7th Cir. 1984, aff’d, 479 U.S. 606 (1985). See generally Block, Nold, and Sidak, The Deterrent Effect of Anti-Trust Enforcement, 89 Journal of Political Economy 429, 440 (1981) (“Neither imprisonment nor monetary penalties pose [ *** ] a credible threat to colluding firms *** [T]he deterrent effect *** [comes] from *** the likelihood of an award of private treble damages”)).
Studies of the antitrust statutes show that most antitrust suits are settled now at close to actual damages. Ironically, it may be necessary to authorize treble damages to assure that deserving victims receive actual damages in the RICO area.
Justice Marshall in Sedima (473 U.S. at 506) also suggests that “a prudent defendant, facing ruinous exposure [under RICO] will decide to settle even a case with no merit.” Accordingly, civil RICO lends itself, he argued, to the very extortive purpose “it was designed to combat.” Justice Marshall cites as authority for this extraordinary proposition the Report of the Ad Hoc Civil RICO Task Force of the ABA Section of Corporations, Banking and Business Law, 69 (1985). The Ad Hoc Task Force, in turn, conducted a survey of 3,200 corporate and litigation lawyers, of whom only 350 responded. Two factors, however, undermine the scientific credibility of the general results of the survey: First, the population questioned was unrepresentative of the bar, and second, the response rate was insufficient to warrant broad generalizations. More to the point here, the survey did not ask each of the respondents a carefully phrased question calling for their opinion or experience with RICO as asettlement weapon. Instead, the opinion relied upon by Justice Marshall was volunteered by only two of the 350 respondents as grounds for repealing RICO. In fact, it is the experience of a majority of seasoned litigators in the RICO area that adding a RICO claim to a suit does not facilitate settlement; it inhibits it, particularly when a legitimate business is involved. (See A Comprehensive Perspective onCivil and Criminal RICO Legislation and Litigation: A report of the RICO Cases Committee, ABA criminal justice section 121-23 (1985)).
Generally, businesses wrongfully accused of “racketeering” will not settle suits — even those that should be compromised — as long as the racketeer label is the litigation. Indeed, it is difficult to understand how Justice Marshall could believe that a suit with “no merit” faces a defendant with “ruinous exposure.” If the plaintiff’s suit has no merit, his chance of success is zero, and zero multiplied by three — or any number — is still zero. It is doubtful, in short, that responsible corporate or other defendants are paying off strike suits in the RICO — or any other area — at more than their settlement value, no matter what the theory of the complaint is. Neither the racketeer label nor the threat of treble damages will convince prudent managers lightly to surrender scarce resources merely because another files a suit. No matter how colorful it is phrased, the claim that such managers act against their own interests is not credible.
Mr. Bolton’s concern over the costs of civil RICO passed along to consumers is ironic, since every year the American public pays bills for commercial fraud that can only be described in Carl Sagan terms. Just as importantly, Mr. Bolton completely overlooks the fact that civil Rico can provide honest businessmen with a powerful weapon against dishonest competitors. As Senator Hruska pointed out when he introduced one of RICO‘s forerunners, S. 1623:
* * * [T]he bill also creates civil remedies for the honest businessman who has been damaged by unfair competition from the racketeer businessman. Despite the willingness of the courts to apply the Sherman Anti-trust Act to organized crime activities, as a practical matter, the legitimate businessman does not have the adequate civil remedies available under the Act. This bill fills the gap. (115 Cong. Rec. 6993 (1969)).
Most of S. 1623’s provisions were subsequently incorporated in RICO. In fact, many large corporations have used section 1964(c) suits, including IBM, Crocker National Bank, Standard Oil of Indiana, Armco Steel, Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., Banker’s Trust Co., AETNA Casualty and Surety Co., Allstate Insurance Co., and State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. IBM, for example sued Hitachi Ltd. under RICO for the theft of computer software; the suit was settled for upwards of $200 million. Similarly, the Crocker litigation against Lehman Brothers, Rockwell International, and Singer, Hunter, Levine and Sussman of New York, a law firm, involved an alleged $225 million computer leasing fraud; it was settled for $65 million.
G. Civil RICO suits are only a minute fraction of the Federal civil case load; considerations of judicial economy do not justify the effective elimination of the section 1964(c) claim for relief.
It is no exaggeration to say that there has been an explosion of private civil RICO lawsuits over the past several years, nor does it seem unreasonable to predict a continuation of this trend *** .
Mr. Bolton makes dire predictions about an explosion of new Federal litigation, as if litigation of any proportion would be unjustified if the victims could establish their allegations. Nevertheless, the “explosion” in private civil RICO suits in recent years hardly justifies a rhetoric of black powder. In fact, less than 500 were brought between 1970 and 1985. (Trott at 126, 141 (“weight of these burdens may not be as great as is claimed”)). Even if it were to increase to 500 suits a year and then be multiplied tenfold, section 1964(c) claims would still constitute only 2 percent of all Federal cases. (Statement of the National Association of Attorneys General and National District Attorneys Association, Oversight on Civil RICO, Hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, 94th Cong. 1st Sess. at 425 (1985)). Approximately 275,000 civil cases are filed each year. “Annual Report of the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts” 11 (1985). 118,000 of the civil cases involve the United States as a plaintiff or defendant; private litigation embraces approximately 160,000 filings, of which 60 percent is Federal question and 40 percent is diversity litigation. Id. at 11. The principal areas of litigation are recovery and overpayments and enforcement of judgments (47,000), prisoner petitions (30,000), Social Security (25,000), civil rights (20,000), and labor (11,000). Id. at A-12-13. Antitrust includes 959 civil filings, id. at A-12, and 47 criminal cases. Id. at A-47. Securities, commodities and exchange-related civil filing make up 3,200, id. at A-13, and 13 criminal cases. Id. at A-46. Fraud-related civil filings make up 1,700. Id. at A-12. Accordingly, if most securities and fraud-related cases were also RICO cases, RICO filing would not exceed 5,000; not more than 2 percent of all Federal filings. How many wholly new pieces of litigation, particularly in the fraud area, RICO will draw into the Federal courts cannot be reliably determined. It is doubtful, however, that the number will be relatively high, as most significant commerical litigation is now in the Federal courts under other Federal statutes or diversity jurisdiction. In fact, recent data on Civil RICO filing, presented to the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, indicates that in 1986, only 1069 cases were filed — not thousands — and 294 were terminated. As such, according to Judge Pamela A. Rymer, “the perceived problem of civil RICO case load is exaggerated * * *.” (2 Civil RICO Report No. 34 at 3 (Feb. 4, 1987)). Mr. Bolton, therefore, grossly exaggerates the “heavy burden” civil RICO cases place on Federal courts. Since almost two-thirds of civil RICO suits could be heard in the Federal courts on other grounds, (Trott at 127) “the practical consideration” of the Federal caseload is not a crucial issue.
H. Civil RICO abuse can be substantially reduced by measures that would not unduly restrict plaintiffs’ access to the courts.
Several legislative approaches to civil RICO reform have been suggested. A common element of each proposal is that each would retain civil RICO‘s private enforcement mechanism, while limiting the circumstances to which it could apply * * *. We have concluded that a requirement for a “prior criminal conviction” as a prerequisite to private civil RICO suits, is the preferable approach. If this approach is adopted, the vast majority of abusive and vexatious civil RICO litigation will be eliminated * * *.
Apparently, Mr. Bolton has not studied the effect a prior criminal conviction remedy would have, not only on the “vast majority of abusive and vexatious private civil RICO suits,” but also on valid claims as well. In the antitrust area, 959 civil actions are filed each year, while only 47 criminal actions are brought. Under securities and related laws, 3,200 civil actions are filed each year, while only 13 criminal actions are brought. “Annual Report of the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts,” A-12, A-47, A-13, A-46 (1985). A prior criminal conviction requirement would effectively eliminate these remedies, just as it would eviscerate private civil RICO. That, in short, is Mr. Bolton’s true objective.
I. Civil RICO applies to all people who violate its criminal provisions.
Private civil RICO has not succeeded in providing an effective weapon against organized crime. Indeed, one of the most significant aspects of civil RICO has been its virtual neglect by those for whose benefit the private remedy was provided — the victims of organized crime. Our proposed amendment would remedy these problems by ensuring that private civil RICO actions would be brought against only convicted criminals, the group that Congress intended to reach.
The key problem with Mr. Bolton’s analysis of section 1964(c) lies in his fundamental misunderstanding of organized crime. Anyone, not just machinegun toting mobsters, can engage in organized crime. including M.B.A. bankers in Brooks Brothers suits, who defraud banks, brokers, however dressed, who churn away their clients’ portfolios, or other fiduciaries, who similarly misuse other peoples money. Wrongly, Mr. Bolton thinks that civil RICO should apply only to the archetype gangsters, not to legitimate businessmen, who act illegally. We specifically considered and rejected Mr. Bolton’s suggested criminal conviction limitation in 1970. Congressman Mikva, for example, in 1970 called to the attention of the House that “[t]here need not be a conviction under any of these laws for it to be racketeering.” (116 Cong. Rec. 35,342 (1970)). It is too late now to suggest that we really intended otherwise. Only a small percentage of suspected criminal activities, moreover, can be investigated thoroughly, and only a fraction of those investigated can be effectively prosecuted. Since white-collar criminals often manage to evade prosecution and conviction, Mr. Bolton’s amendment would deny the victims of white-collar crime one of their most effective remedies. Civil RICO suits should not be brought only against convicted criminals, but also against criminals who plea-bargain, turn states evidence, or get off on a technicality.
Private civil RICO, moreover, has not failed against organized crime. Indeed, it is in danger of becoming a victim of its own success. RICO has merely reached a more monied class of criminals, aclass who apparently is now able to make its voice heard at the highest levels in the Department of Justice. Nevertheless, the best answer to Mr. Bolton’s position is found in the testimony of Assistant Attorney General Trott:
[I]t is true, of course, that the deterrent value of private civil RICO enforcement does not seem very significant when judged in terms of the number of private actions that have been brought against known or suspected members of organized crime. On the other hand, in gauging the overall deterrent value of auxiliary enforcement by private plaintiffs, the deterrence provided by the mere threat of private suits must be added to the deterrence supplied by the suits that are actually filed. Furthermore, as the federal government’s enforcement efforts continue to weaken organized crime and dispel the myth of invulnerability that has long surrounded and protected its members, private plaintiffs may become more willing to pursue RICO‘s attractive civil remedies in organized crime contexts. It should be remembered, too, that civil RICO has significant deterrent potential when used by institutional plaintiffs, such as units of state and local governments, which are not likely to be intimidated at the prospect of suing organized crime members. Finally, civil RICO‘s utility against continuous large-scale criminality not involving traditional organized crime elements should be kept in mind. These considerations suggest that private civil RICO enforcement in area of the organized criminality may have had a greater deterrent impact than is commonly recognized, and that both the threat and the actuality of private enforcement might be expected to produce even greater deterrence in the future. (Trott pp. 140-41.)
J. If fraud is a serious national problem and civil RICO relief should be available to the federal government without a prior criminal conviction requirement, state and local units of government and private citizens should have exactly the same remedy.
*** we recommend that the statute be amended to clarify the federal government’s ability to obtain monetary redress for organized criminal activity that causes injury to the United States. Adoption of this proposal could provide significant benefits to the government, and substantially enhance the deterrent impact of civil RICO.
Paradoxically, no sooner has Mr. Bolton finished arguing for the elimination of civil RICO actions for private parties, including State and local units of government, absent a prior criminal conviction, than he proposes to except the Federal Government from the limitation. Indeed, he makes an excellent case for governmental use of civil RICO: the protection of the public treasury through “the recovery of Federal funds *** fraudulently obtained or misused *** .” Conceding that other existing fraud remedies are inadequate, he quite properly points out that “the possibility of recovering treble damages underRICO might make litigation worthwhile in situations in which the recovery of compensatory damages might not be cost effective, but where important governmental interests should nevertheless be vindicated.” Further, he argues that “the possibility of a treble damage suite by the Government could have a significant deterrent effect on persons contemplating fraudulent acquisition or misuse of Government funds.”
Unfortunately, Mr. Bolton displays a distressing lack of knowledge of how the Federal Government works and how it relates to State and local units of government. First, he seems to assume that the only fraud practiced against the Government is in contract procurement. In fact, many Government programs operate through grant-in-aid or provider reimbursement devices, where the Government, as such, is not injured. Incomprehensively, the language of Mr. Bolton’s proposal would not protect, bycivil RICO suits, these kinds of “Government” programs from fraud. The victims of this kind of fraud will often be, in fact, State and local units of government, which Mr. Bolton’s proposal would not except. In addition, many government programs are implemented through the mechanisms of Government chartered corporations, including the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Saving and Loan Insurance Corporations, the Tennessee Valley Authority, etc. These programs, too, would fall outside of the language of the Bolton proposal. These results are, of course, indefensible, even under Mr. Bolton’s rationale; they could only be the result, therefore, of poor staff work. As such, they call into question his entire proposal.
Second, no rationale can be offered why State and local units of government ought not have precisely the same right to use civil RICO to protect their own programs from fraud. Prosecutions going on in New York City right now by the Federal Government, for example, are using criminal RICO to root out municipal corruption. Not all of the culpable parties, particularly corrupt business people, will be prosecuted; many will be offered immunity to testify against corrupt public officials. Should these equally guilty parties be free of civil responsibility under RICO, too? If it is appropriate for the Federal Government to concern itself with corruption at the State and local level of government — and it is — it can hardly be suggested that the Federal courts, open for criminal suits, ought to be closed for civilsuits on behalf of Government victims. Mr. Bolton has offered no rationale to justify this result. It, too, calls into question Mr. Bolton’s entire proposal. It is hard to understand how Mr. Bolton fails to recognize that civil RICO serves the same laudable purposes in the private sector. For the private citizens’ interest “in an effective effort against organized, systematic illegality” is no less vital than the Federal Government’s or that of State and local units of government. Mr. Bolton believes that the Government should have effective tools to fight fraud. It would be anomalous to deny those same tools to State and local units of government — or to private citizens.
CONCLUSION
In ancient Egypt, the scales were first used to symbolize impartiality, that balance of Re, the Sun god, in which he weighed ma-at, justice. (J. Nooham Bribes 7 (1984)). That justice was not always evenhanded at the beginning of civilization also may be seen in that it was necessary for Holy Scripture to issue its ancient injunction: “Prosecute the rich not merely the penniless; strong-armed men as well as those who are powerless.” (Job 36:19) The desire of the rich and the strong-armed to put their thumb on the scale of justice remains with us.
Civil RICO builds upon the experience of the last half-century in the antitrust and securities areas and generalizes it across the marketplace. As the antitrust acts seek to maintain economic freedom in the marketplace, RICO seeks, in the fraud area, to promote integrity in the marketplace. As such, RICOproperly applies to racketeering activity, no matter who engages in it. The rich and the strong-armed must not be allowed to win their special pleas and to place their thumb on the scales of justice. RICO is neither antibusiness nor probusiness. It is provictim. Mr. Bolton’s proposal should be rejected.
Mr. Speaker, I include a copy of Mr. Bolton’s letter in the Record following my remarks:
U.S. Department of Justice,
Office of Legislative and
Intergovernmental Affairs,
Washington, DC, July 22, 1986.
Hon. George Bush,
President, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President.
Enclosed for your consideration and appropriate reference is a bill to amend section 1964(c) of title 18, United States Code — the provision in the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (“RICO“) Act that permits federal treble damage suits for injuries caused by RICO violations. The proposed bill would amend the statute to require proof of a prior criminal conviction as an essential element of a private civil RICO suit for treble damages. This restriction would not apply to civil RICO suits brought by the United States when it has just been injured by RICO violations. The Department of Justice believes that this approach would best respond to the increasingly troublesome issues that civil RICO litigation has raised over the past several years.
The need for civil RICO reform is clear. Recent Congressional hearings, court decisions, and studies by the Department of Justice and others have made it plain that private civil RICO enforcement is severely flawed in two fundamental respects. First, private RICO suits have not achieved their intended purpose as supplements to the federal government’s criminal enforcement efforts against organized crime. Second, private uses of the statute have created clear and substantial dangers to other important federal interests.
When it enacted section 1964(c) as part of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, Congress hoped that private civil suits would assist in preventing infiltration of legitimate business by organized crime. That hope has not been realized. Fewer than ten percent of private civil RICO actions have been based on what is ordinarily considered to be organized crime activity. Instead, the vast majority of actions has arisen out of commonplace commercial transactions allegedly involving fraud on the part of businesses and individuals that have no connection to organized crime. Other unanticipated applications of the statute have occurred in cases involving claims of sexual harassment, disputes over the leadership of a synagogue, and routine divorce controversies. Civil RICO has been used to attack an undercover FBI investigation of corruption in the Cleveland municipal court system.
The unexpected evolution of section 1964(c) into “something quite different from the original conception of its enactors,” see SEDIMA, S.P.R.L. v. IMREX CO., INC., 105 S. Ct. 3275, 3287 (1985), has lead to the unnecessary and unwise federalization of an area of the law that is best reserved to the states, and has had other significant detrimental consequences as well.
We do not believe that, when it enacted RICO, Congress thought it necessary to create a general federal remedy for fraud, or that it intended to do so. More to the point, there is today no valid reason to permit civil RICO‘s continued use in this manner, and every good reason for declining to do so.
To begin with, there is no need for a general federal fraud remedy. Persons who engage in serious fraud can be, and frequently are, prosecuted for criminal offenses under both federal and state statutes. In addition, federal laws and judicial decisions afford civil redress for specific types of fraudulent conduct, such as securities fraud, and state statutes and common law principles permit civil recovery for those species of fraud not covered by federal law. We know of no shortcomings in these various provisions such as would warrant adoption of a broad federal remedy for fraud.
Moreover, private civil RICO litigation has had a number of serious repercussions. First, the increasing use of section 1964(c) as a federal fraud remedy threatens to undermine carefully crafted and well established federal statutory schemes that have been developed to regulate the securities, commodities, banking, accounting, and savings and loan industries. In the securities area, for example,a plaintiff alleging fraud will always have an incentive to seek treble damages under civil RICO rather than, or in addition to, pursuing a claim for compensatory damages under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or under state law.
Second, the availability of section 1964(c) as a general federal fraud remedy undercuts standing limitations and procedural requirements that have been developed over fifty years to restrict access to federal courts. The Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 provide express and implied causes of action for violations of each Act. These statutes, however, strictly limit standing to sue by imposing a purchaser/seller requirement; they also impose stringent requirements of proof regarding “causation,” “materiality,” and “reliance.” Private civil RICO plaintiffs who allege securities fraud can now completely circumvent these federal securities law limitations. Because approximately 40 percent of private civil RICO actions involve claims of securities fraud, and because civil RICO permits the evasion or undermining of carefully crafted statutory schemes in other areas as well, civil RICO has the potential to undermine legal doctrines that have evolved over decades to adjudicate claims in each of these areas.
Equally serious is the threat of civil RICO liability to legitimate businesses engaged in purely commercial transactions. Section 1964(c) permits virtually any legitimate business enterprise to be charged with “racketeering” and threatened with a judgment for treble damages and attorneys’ fees, simply on the basis of an ordinary commercial dispute. Civil RICO skews dispute resolution in commercial cases, extorts settlements and increases legal fees, which costs ultimately will be passed on to the purchasers of the goods or services.
Finally, absent any need for a pervasive federal fraud remedy it is inconsistent with the nation’s constitutional principles to exert federal jurisdiction over forms of conduct that traditionally and appropriately have been regarded solely as matters of state concern. The observance of sound principles of federalism is not merely a theoretical imperative. The approach of leaving to the states all matters regarding which there is not a persuasive and constitutionally justifiable reason for federal involvement is dictated by practical considerations as well. Chief among these is the inappropriate and increasingly heavy burden that private civil RICO suits impose on the federal courts. It is no exaggeration to say that there has been an explosion of private civil RICO lawsuits over the past several years, nor does it seem unresonable to predict a continuation of this trend as the statute’s unusually attractive civil remedy becomes more widely understood and as efforts are made to apply it to an ever expanding range of conduct. Indeed, the recent emergence of a “Civil RICO Bar,” replete with specialized reporting services, seminars, and practical courses of instruction, virtually ensures this result.
The unintended and undesirable evolution of section 1964(c) into a general federal fraud remedy requires an unequivocal Congressional response which accommodates important federal interests. These interests include maintaining the federal government’s successful use of RICO‘s criminal provisions against large-scale organized criminal activities and enhancing the government’s ability to make effective use of RICO‘s civil provisions. Other federal interests that should be taken into account include observance of sound principles of federalism, eliminating burdensome litigation, and assuring the fair operation of our federal courts.
Several legislative approaches to civil RICO reform have been suggested. A common element of each proposal is that each would retain civil RICO‘s private enforcement mechanism, while limiting the circumstances to which it could apply. Over the past year, we have carefully considered each of these proposals in light of the federal interests discussed above. We have concluded that a requirement for a “prior criminal conviction” as a prerequisite to private civil RICO suits, is the preferable approach. If this approach is adopted, the vast majority of abusive and vexatious civil RICO litigation would be eliminated and ordinary state law fraud cases would remain in state court where they belong.
By contrast, changes in the definition of “pattern of racketeering activity” could also make it more difficult to obtain criminal convictions, while doing little to relieve federal courts of the burden of having to interpret and apply a general federal fraud remedy. A “fraud plus” requirement might not interfere directly with criminal prosecutions under RICO, but could limit the government’s ability to use civil RICO effectively and would not be responsive to federalism concerns.
The fundamental problem with section 1964(c), lies in its underlying premise — that civil suits by private litigants — in the absence of a prior criminal conviction — can reasonably be expected to discourage organized crime’s efforts to infiltrate legitimate businesses. Experience and logic show this principle to be untenable. Private civil RICO enforcement has not succeeded in providing an effective weapon against organized crime. Indeed, one of the most significant aspects of civil RICO has been its virtual neglect by those for whose benefit the private remedy was provided — the victims of organized crime. No doubt many potential plaintiffs have foregone private suits out of fear of physical retaliation,a consequence for which not even the prospect of treble damages and attorneys’ fees could compensate. Moreover, even the most courageous victim might conclude that he could never collect a judgment for damages, either because potential individual defendants had no assets or because potential corporate defendants had been assessed heavy fines or had forfeited their assets to the government in the wake of a successful criminal prosecution. Our proposed amendment would remedy these problems by ensuring that private civil RICO actions are brought only against convicted criminals, the group that Congress intended to reach.
The Supreme Court, in the SEDIMA case, explicitly recognized this basic flaw in civil RICO, and just as plainly invited Congress to correct it:
“It is true that private civil actions under this statute are being brought almost solely against [respected and legitimate enterprises], rather than against the archetypical, intimidating mobster. Yet this defeat — if defeat it is — is inherent in the statute as written, and its correction must lie with Congress. It is not for the Judiciary to eliminate the private section in situations where Congress has provided it simply because plaintiffs are not taking advantage of it in its more difficult applications.” (105 S. Ct. at 3287) [footnote omitted].
Given private civil RICO‘s failure as a useful weapon against organized crime, we believe that private enforcement should be modified to require a prior conviction before further damage is done to important federal interests. Such a course will not impair the legitimate interests of plaintiffs who can now use civil RICO in lieu of remedies provided by state law and other federal statutes. Those other state and federal remedies will continue to be available. Moreover, if individual states believe that an additional remedy, comparable to that now provided by section 1964(c), is needed to protect their interests or those of their citizens, they are free to take appropriate legislative action.
Concurrently with amendment of private civil RICO suits, we recommend that the statute be amended to clarify the federal government’s ability to obtain monetary redress for organized criminal activity that causes injury to the United States. In the belief that such authority already exists, we filed such a suit last year in the Middle District of Florida. The court in that case has sustained our view, but because the question is not entirely free from doubt we think it would be wise to amend the statute so that it explicitly allows the United States to file damage suits for injuries suffered by it as a result of civil RICO violations.
The government already has authority to sue for injunctive relief on behalf of others and, presumably, on its own behalf as well. Thus, it would be anomalous to deny it the right to sue for damages when the United States has been injured by a RICO violation. Such suits could provide a particularly valuable method of protecting the public treasury from fraudulent misuse of federal funds. Damage suits by the United States would make possible the recovery of federal funds — provided either through government programs or government contracts — that have been fraudulently obtained or misused, as well as the recovery of other losses suffered by the government. For example, in the Florida case just referred to, the government is attempting to recover more than $47 million from two businessmen and three companies previously convicted of criminal RICO fraud against the government in connection with the awarding of Department of Defense contracts.
The option to sue under such a provision would provide other benefits as well. For example, the possibility of recovering treble damages under RICO might make litigation worthwhile in situations in which the recovery of compensatory damages might not be cost effective but where important governmental interests should nevertheless be vindicated. Second, the possibility of a treble damage suit by the government could have a significant deterrent effect on persons contemplating fraudulent acquisition or misuse of government funds. With all of the recent revelations of possible fraud in the area of government contracts, such added deterrence would certainly be welcome. In this connection, it is important to remember that the federal interest in an effective effort against organized, systematic illegality — whether manifested by fraud against the government or other conduct detrimental to the United States — is, in essence, an interest in a result. We believe that the government should have effective tools to achieve that result in appropriate cases.
Adoption of this proposal could provide significant benefits to the government, and substantially enhance the deterrent impact of civil RICO. At the same time, because the Department currently screens and controls these cases as carefully as it oversees the uses of RICO‘s criminal provisions, and would continue to do so in the future, there would be no basis for criticisms such as are now being generated by irresponsible uses of the civil RICO statute by private plaintiffs.
The attached bill would amend 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) as discussed above by requiring a prior criminal conviction for racketeering activity under section 1962 before a private party (which under the statute includes state and local governments) would be permitted to maintain a civil action. Suits by the United States are exempted from this restriction and expressly authorized by a new subsection (d). Finally the private cause of action is also limited by a new, two year statute of limitations, running from the date of the latest criminal conviction.
This is a most significant proposal which would respond in a sensible and effective manner to increasingly serious problems that have arisen in the interpretation and application of an important federal statute directed at the menace of organized crime. I would request that it be given careful and speedy consideration.
As explained above, the Department of Justice believes that, by helping to alleviate burdensome and vexatious litigation, enactment of this bill would have a salutary effect on the workload of the federal courts.
Tuesday, October 27, 1987

From Activist Post–More brilliant work on the troubles afoot.

Another brave and brilliant reporter jumps into the waters again, asking more and more questions about what is actually going on here?  If you love asking the IARDC questions, you will love this article.

http://www.activistpost.com/2013/10/government-attorneys-implicated-in.html

This is an amazing article and I want to give a huge vote of thanks to the reporter that has spent many hours working on this.

 

From KDD – more witness tampering and obstruction of justice by the IARDC

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Oct 27, 2013 6:39 AM
To: Janet Phelan , “jdit@aol.com”  , Cook County [agency] , [agency] , Harry Heckert , “jdenison@surfree.com” , “matt_abbott@kirk.senate.gov” , “ces@cspin.com” , “lawrence@Lhyman.com” , Edward Carter
Subject: Re: Why don’t they prosecute attorneys denying human and civil rights to seniors?

Every judicial scandal has certain elements.   Certain lawyers appear to be ‘bag men’ and other influence brokers.    Greylord exposed the pattern in vivid detail.   Certain fixers always stand out.   There is a book that came out in the late 1990’s that I believe was called the “Jewish Mafia” that exposed the Arvey, Hodes, group.  This group subsequently moved to California and became associated with the movie industry.
Similar pattern is appearing in the ‘elder cleansing scandal except the problem seems to be franchised.   To date I have not found a Mr. Big or Mrs. Big.    What I’ve discovered is franchises that are doled out to individuals.    For instance, the F estate in Florida fits the pattern.   The attorney franchise in the Sykes case fits the pattern.  ([entity’s] attempt to grab Gloria Sykes’ insurance money is a clue).    The [entity] in Gore also fits the pattern, especially with Alice Gore being placed in an Esformes nursing home.   The mining of Gore’s teeth for the Au is an example of the greed!
I do not believe that [entity] is a big player in Illinois.   His name comes up frequently so his involvement is set in stone.   The [entities] who frequently are used to sign the certificates of incompetency are  rote players.    Similarly, the [agency] [entities] who act in concert with the miscreants do not appear to be major actors.
In my case the incidents with Dr. Patel and the testimony of Dr. Patel illustrate the ‘catch as catch can’ approach of the attorneys who aid and abet the miscreants.    As you are aware that prior to filing a lawsuit the Courts require that the attorney have sufficient information to certify that the complaint is not frivolous.   Thus, to find out the facts I wrote a FRCP 11 letter to Dr. Patel.
Seizing on the ‘any port in a storm’ approach [entity] and his co conspirators attempted to create a ‘catch 22’.     They and their aiders and abetters took the position that doing a FRCP investigation of any case in which the elder cleansers had targeted was unethical.    In a captive environment apparently such has some appeal.
The [agency][entity] apparently was directed to create the illusion that the FRCP 11 letter was intimidating as it asked the question of how the same patient could be to one doctor able to speak and understand everything and to [entity] she was a stone.     What the miscreants did not want to be revealed was the fact that dozens if not hundreds of victims were railroaded in guardianships in the same manner and there was a franchise set up to obtain medical opinions that suited the miscreants.   Gloria in her pro-se examination of a [entity] had him admit that he was giving his professional opinion without ever meeting Mary Sykes!
 Dr. Patel had no stake in the effort to shut me up and therefore he was disinterested.   Pressing on in their efforts to silence me, the [agency-entity] made secret contact with Patel and told him what she wanted him to say and even sent him documents.   (In discovery she did not disclose her prior contact or her communication with Patel; however, during her aborted attempt to create the facade that in an effort to obtain justice Dr. Patel was to testify by telephone, she inadvertently disclosed the contact).
Patel was brought into the hearing and he was never asked if he was intimidated.   Larry brought out the fact that Patel received the communication and did not respond to it, but merely placed it in the file.   The attempted subordination of perjury failed!    (I assume that when an Honest complete and comprehensive investigation is completed this fiasco will come back to haunt the young attorney how was assigned this task.)
Greylord was a great teacher.   It taught the miscreant leader to stay under cover.    The Rothner deposition in the Northshore case gives a clue to the MO.   The MO of Enron is refined and cleverly executed.    Little by little the government is unwinding the web but these are very clever and smart people.   Their fingers are in everything and their time table very well thought out.
In short the ‘elder cleansing’ portion of this scandal is just one of the cancers that has infected our society.    It is part of a much larger scandal but it is very real and very difficult for the families who fall victim to the avarice of the miscreants.    Your research into the [agency] reveals that the tentacles reach into that organization and instead of doing their job to protect the public, they waste public money in protecting the foot soldiers who do the dirty work for the ‘elder cleansers!’    [I’ll have Larry segregate the Patel testimony on Monday and send you both sessions – it is very revealing.]
Once again – thank you for taking the time to do an expose of ‘elder cleansing’ in Illinois and exposing the underbelly of the IARDC.    I’ve copied law enforcement as to this e-mail as what we have is a National Problem and it is the duty of every citizen to assist and co-operate with every HONEST complete and comprehensive investigation of ‘elder cleansing’ and to keep calling for HONEST complete and comprehensive investigations until our disabled and senior citizens can go into our courts and not fear to be victimized by the ‘judicial officials!’
Ken Ditkowsky

From KDD–He asks how much courage do you need to fight all of this trouble

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Oct 26, 2013 7:50 AM
To: “jdenison@surfree.com”
Subject: Blog

The First Amendment is a core value of American culture, and the Amendment is the first to be attacked by those who wish to take our freedom from us.   In the past half century there have been numerous attacks by our political leaders on the First Amendment.  Recently the left leaning political types attempted to use the IRS to silence the ‘tea party.’  The clout heavy criminals who promulgate the enterprise and cottage industry of ‘elder cleansing’ are using the lawyer disciplinary boards to silence lawyers who stand in their way of abusing and exploiting seniors.
Few individuals want to stand up to the entrenched political types.   Even fewer are willing to put their own reputations and well being on the line and be counted.   It is easy to stand on the sidelines and throw rocks and be part of the ‘mob’ but it not easy to stand up and go face to face with those in authority who are assaulting our core values.   The political types are much more attractive than you and I.  Hate, avarice, and a ‘fast buck’ are much easier to sell than hard work, diligence, and doing the right thing without even the remote possibility of reward.
With your blog you have done exactly that, and provided the families of the victims of elder cleansing with a forum for exercise of their First Amendment Rights.   Read [entity 1]  letter to [agency] by [entity]  that is attached to the letter that I wrote yesterday.   She is terrified that the Probate Sharks blog will stir an Honest investigation of her part in elder cleansing.   Similarly [numerous entities] and others have expended great energy in getting [entity] and the [agency] to attempt to silence attorneys who contribute to the NASGA including you and me.
When brute force fails to silence and destroy First Amendment Rights then one by one each opponent is approached by advocates of the assault on the First Amendment and we are confronted by people who suggest to us that our own best interests are served by just a concession.   Some of the people who appear as advocates are sincere and some are acting in concert with the miscreants.
Self interest is a powerful force, and it is a legitimate force.   Being foolish, being stubborn, or committing professional Suicide is not a respected method of solving a problem.   It is always better to in a proper situation to retreat and come back to fight another day than to get destroyed.
Last night I watched you address this scenario and was impressed by the solution that you reached.   The decision took great courage.   More importantly the decision set an example for your family and friends.   I say this not because I took the same tack, but because I know what it is to stand up for principle and have to take the consequences of the decision.
I applaud your decision to stand four square for your Rights as a Citizen of the United States of America and the rights that we all share that are America’s core values.
Ken Ditkowsky

http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/

From KDD–he asks, where do the complaints [to authorities] go besides the desk to circular file effluent.

To: NASGA <NASGA.org@gmail.com>, probate sharks <verenusl@gmail.com>, “jdenison@surfree.com” <jdenison@surfree.com>, Harry Heckert <vahrh1135@aol.com>, “janet_c_phelan@yahoo.com” <janet_c_phelan@yahoo.com>, j ditkowsky <jdit@aol.com>, “zamirkatan@aol.com” <zamirkatan@aol.com>, “60m@cbsnews.com” <60m@cbsnews.com>

Subject: Liability for violation of 42 USCA 1983, Tax Fraud, et al
Date: Oct 22, 2013 9:19 PM
Civil Rights and particular the First Amendment are core values of America.   People who attempt to deprive others of First Amendment Rights walk a very thin cord.   Public bodies (including the [authorities]) are not exempt of protected from the onus of violation of the First Amendment Rights of citizens.   Indeed, officials including attorneys must respect the core rights of citizens or suffer some very severe consequences.

Just like the policeman who beats a suspect, the bureaucrat who misuses his position to ‘cover up’ elder cleansing, racial cleansing, ethnic cleansing etc has to account both in the civil sector and the criminal sector.   There is absolutely no excuse for a lawyer to not know the Rule of Law as decreed by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Many citizens have inquired as to how come the [authorities] have not prosecuted the miscreant lawyers such as those who have surfaced in [certain probate] cases.   certainly there have been many complaints filed against them.   Everyone knows that Gloria Sykes, the Coopers, Schwartz etc have filed detailed complaints.   Pursuant to Himmel I have personally written the [authorities] as I believe that when Mary Sykes’ safety deposit box was ‘looted’ it was unconscionable that the two [entities] refused to report this situation to the Court.    The fact that the person who removed the gold coins did not deny (and has not denied) the theft was significant.   Only the [entities]  and [authorities] were active in denying a fact that everyone knew was a fact.

Thus, how come JoAnne Denison and yours truly are in the ‘dock’ for demanding an Honest complete and comprehensive investigation.   Yes, I came to the same conclusion as you.   It is my opinion that the attempt to ‘shut up’ both Ms. Dension and me is a violation of 42 USCA 1983, the public policy of the State of Illinois and is without jurisdiction and therefore a clearly ultra vires act.   Pursuant to Himmel this has been reported by me to the [authorities] which did nothing.   Saying they did nothing is not actually accurate.  [the authorities ]wrote me to report to me that [an entity] had been appointed Gloria Sykes’ guardian ad litem.   (This report became a typo 17 days later, but no investigation followed!)

In my opinion the conduct of the [authorities] is aiding and abetting the ‘elder cleansing’ of Mary Sykes.   It is also aiding the person who breached her fiduciary relationship to Mary Sykes avoid having to pay the United States of America and the State of Illinois the income taxes that are due.   As no one has been delegated the right to monitor, impede, censor, otherwise interfere with my, Ms Dension or other citizen’s First Amendment Rights, [the authorities] and every member of his staff involved has acted in an ultra vires manner acting under color of authority to deny and/or interfere with our civil rights.   As there has been and can be no delegation there can be no immunity!   Read the words of 42 USCA sec.  1983.

I am certain that the United States of America and the Illinois Department of Revenue are delighted by the ‘cover’ that [the authorities] have afforded the people who obtained benefits from the profits of their ‘elder cleansing’ and did not report and did not pay taxes on the benefits.   Tax evasion and aiding and abetting tax evasion historically has not been an accepted practice and I assume that with trillions of dollars in deficits the elder cleansing industry will ultimately have to pay its ‘fair share!’

It is my hope that I have answered the questions that have been presented.   I do not know if and when Law enforcement is going to address this ‘elder cleansing’ issue.    I do know that the law and basic civil rights are being violated and we need not only transparency but we need an HONEST complete and comprehensive investigation of not only the lawyers involved in elder cleansing but those who aid and abet them.   (I’ve again copied the ARDC, but having first hand experience I have little hope that they are interested in protecting the public.  The miscreants are safe to continue to prey on the old, infirm, and those citizens who are being targeted.   The removal of Mrs. Gore’s gold filings is a testament to perfidy that has been allowed to flourish. )
For the record, JoAnne Denison received word that the [authorities] desires to obtain a delay in her hearing before [the authorities].   It is my opinion that if the [authorities] operates under any guise of ‘good faith’ the charges brought against her should be dismissed and she provided suitable restitution for the ultra vires interference with her civil rights.
Ken Ditkowsky
http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/

From Joanne;

It it utterly unconscionable that when Gloria has filed numerous notices to the court, demands upon the [authorities] that gold coins are missing, a safe deposit box was drilled, contents removed AND NO INVESTIGATION BY THEM, their behavior is scandalous.  [one entity] testified in a court of law on or about Sept. 12, 2013 that he served subpoenas on the bank and nothing came of it–this is despite the fact those subpoenas MUST be filed with the clerk and the Record on Appeal (“ROA”) shows no such subpoenas, no return of service and no affidavit of service in the ROA.  This is outrageous behavior for [an entity].  He should have served subpoenas on Pullman Bank for the signature sheets from April 2010, the video footage, names of the person in the vault area for what was said to them.  Instead nothing but a lie–and the [authorities], rather than investigate the lie which has been brought to their attention in the 43 points and 60+ points the [authorities] got wrong at KDD’s trial, they conspicuously ignore it themselves.

But this blog does not lie.  It tells the truth.  It knows there is funny business afoot and yet the [authorities] prosecutes the messengers in lieu of cleaning its own house.  Everyone has to put pressure on the Ill. Sup. Ct. to clean house at the [authorities].  Please write and call them and demand that the [authorities] comply with state law – 5 USC 420 and reveal all of their extracurricular dealings in finances and ethics.

Clerk’s Office – Springfield
Temporary Address
421 East Capitol Avenue,
Springfield, Illinois 62701
(217) 782-2035
TDD (217) 524-8132
Office Hours:  8:30 – 4:30


Clerk’s Office – Chicago

Michael A. Bilandic Building
160 North LaSalle Street
Chicago, IL 60601
(312) 793-1332
TDD (312) 793-6185
Office Hours:  8:30 – 4:30

Ask for the Chief Justice, Thomas L. Kilbride or any of the other justices and ask why there is no justice for Mary Sykes.  Where are her gold coins?  How many appeals have been filed before him and there was no justice for Mary Sykes.  Maybe she is just one little old lady of 93 who used to live in an inconspicuous 2 flat on the north side, but she was beloved by dozens of family members and friends, and I am one of them.

Here are the other justices:

http://www.state.il.us/court/SupremeCourt/meetsupremecourt.asp

Now, [an entity] has asked why aren’t the courts more open to the average man and woman, well besides the obvious cost of litigation and attorneys and rules books 4 inches thick that read like Japanese stereo instructions, why would anyone go to court when the story of Mary G. Sykes and the ARDC has been published on this blog?  What is the point?

Justice [redacted] needs to take these issues seriously and take control of his courts.  I know he is just one person, but he is the one person, unlike myself, Ken Ditkowsky, Janet Phelan, Gloria Sykes and many, many others who have posted here, that can make a gigantuan difference in these cases.

Latest update from the IARDC — NO TRIAL NEXT WEEK!

For all of you out there that have been waiting for my blog trial–a trial that consists of nothing but an attorney blogging about probate and other legal issues on a real time basis with real thoughts and feeling and impressions, unvarnished and fully raw, for some reason I received an Order in the mail, no trial for me or this blog next week!

A welcome relief since there are many, many things to do for a 4 day trial.  And I’m not even sure it will not run longer than that with all my evidence–4 fact witness, Gloria, Scott, Yolanda and Kathie that are willing to come and testify the blog is the truth, then 4 or more expert witnesses–Atty Ken Ditkowsky on constitutional law, Bev and Ken Cooper on running a blog and local area weekly cable show, John Howard Wyman, the author of a popular and highly rated probate victim book — Against Her Will, available on Amazon, Sylvia Rudek from NASGA.  All highly excellent and competent witnesses who will confirm that what I say, as unbelievable as it may seem, is not only accurate, but has been and is currently experienced by many, many people across the nation! Mary Sykes is not alone and I am not crazy.  What I relate to you, my dear reads is not fiction or imagination.

But what caused all this?  No one said, but here is what happened last week.

On October 15, 2013, both parties were to file their Motions in Limine (pre trial motions) and exhibits.  My clerk was suddenly out of the office, his father suddenly and unexpectedly died, so I filed by mail.  I used the same exhibits I used in the Gloria-Scott-Yolanda-Kathie deposition and just added one more, a $60,000 tax lien that was found on [an entity’s] property.  Hmm, this is indeed a serious ethical violation.  So maybe that is a problem.

On Thursday, Oct. 18, 2013, I received a large box of documents from [an entity] which purported to contain 33 exhibits and 10 Motions in Limine to bar all my witnesses and exhibits–an excessive and abusive amount, if you ask me.

Curiously, when I look at what was actually included, there was in fact only ONE motion in limine to bar KDD, and the other motions, nos. 2 to 10 were missing!

So right away I call and fax [the entities] warning them–Houston, we have a problem.

No response.  So Monday I call up the ARDC and talk to the clerk’s offices.  Yes, she confirms the filing she has only has one motion in limine to bar KDD, and the rest are missing from her copy.  I ask for her name, and I think she said [***}, so I ask her to spell it out and rather than do that she says I should speak to [an authority] and she puts me thru without answering!

[an entity] actually answers the phone, but it is weird.  I identify myself and start to ask about the box of documents, but she starts excitedly demanding “how did I get through?”  “you’re only supposed to go to voice mail”  “I don’t want to talk to you because you always turn things around on me when I talk to you on the phone.”  which is indeed very interesting because I have never spoken [this entity] on the phone before this, I only spoke to her once before at my deposition.

She must be a little excited today, I figure.

In any case, here is my fax to her:

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6FbJzwtHocwclRYclVxYlpQWVk/edit?usp=sharing

and here is the only one Motion in Limine that I got from her and she never sent along the others:

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6FbJzwtHocwR1dmcklBcGtZS1U/edit?usp=sharing

and here is the order to reset the trial dates, mailed to me and no one had the decency to call me on Monday:

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6FbJzwtHocwWUl5aEtmbjJxNWc/edit?usp=sharing

So let’s wait until Oct. 28, 2013 when we are supposed to have another conference call with the tribunal and see what happens.

thanks

joanne

From Ken Ditkowsky–new investigation by private reporters

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Oct 21, 2013 6:31 AM
To: Reporter 1, Reporter 2,  “IllinoisLawyerNow@isba.org” , “illinois.ardc@gmail.com”
, “60m@cbsnews.com” <60m@cbsnews.com>, “tips@tribune.com” , SUNTIMES , “chicagotonight@wttw.com” , “jdenison@surfree.com”
Subject: Illinois [authority] investigation

In Illinois we have a requirement that requires lawyers to report the bad conduct of other lawyers focusing in on criminal behavior and behavior in violation of Illinois and Federal statutes.   However, when issues surrounding [certain legal fora] are reported over and over, the complaints are routinely dismissed.
Your HONEST comprehensive and complete investigation of [certain authorities] now being spread of record on the internet is pure “fresh air!” and is much appreciated.    I hope that you are sharing the information that you have uncovered with law enforcement and the legal authorities here in Illinois as soon as your investigation is over.    In theory we do not have ‘classes’ of people in America, however, the information that you are gathering and disclosing suggests the contrary.     When lawyers are not free to speak out (or are afraid to do so) on subjects such as ‘elder cleansing’ and the systematic separation of senior citizens from their liberty, their property, civil rights and human rights America is in real trouble.      When a lawyer is asked by the [the authorities] if he repents for writing to the Attorney General of the United States concerning this subject, America is in real trouble.     When a lawyers call for an investigation of obvious criminal conduct is met with [], America is in serious trouble. ****
The ‘free press’ and the free association of ideas is essential.     It was not long ago that Illinois was exposed in the ‘Greylord’ investigation and 15 judges went to jail and many others were forced to resign.    It appears the ‘elder cleansing’ scandal is ultimately going to yield similar embarrassment.      Mr. Chambers has scanned in the transcripts of statements made by several [authorities] as part of their prosecution of me for speaking out on the subject of ‘elder cleansing!’     You will find them enlightening!      The prosecution of Ms. Denison is just so wrong that I am asking Law Enforcement to look into it!     In my opinion it is another terrible assault on our Republic!       How can an [atty] be challenged for publishing a ‘content related or political’ blog in light of the First Amendment and the Rule of Law as decreed by the Supreme Court of the United States!
Thank you for carrying the ‘leading oar’ in alerting Law Enforcement to “elder cleansing!”     A democratic society cannot tolerate Ethnic, Racial or Elder Cleansing.    Getting old is not a crime and certainly not an excuse for aiding and abetting predators in depriving the elderly of their liberty property civil and human rights.
Ken Ditkowsky

http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/

And I would personally like to thank the investigative reporters who are donating their time and efforts to spend countless hours pouring over information and analyzing it for review.  Of course, the information will have to be carefully preserved so it does not “disappear” or “suddenly changes” like transcripts in probate.

We are hoping to find some relief for these families and probate victims. So far, the system and authorities continue to ignore their pleas, yet heaping another level of abuse upon these poor innocent victims.

Any help or information anyone can donate will be greatly appreciated.

I am going to trial next week on this blog.  I don’t take it personally.  I am not the blog and the blog is not me.  It is a living, breathing, collection of thoughts, experiences, opinions and information donated over this past 16 months from a wide variety of readers and fans.  I am only one small part in it.  You channel your concerns, your past problems, abuses and troubles here.  I understand that and respect that.  I am only your channel and I am not what you are or who you are.  I am most certainly not what the [the authorities] wants me to be, but they have not submitted any input into this blog.   The blog speaks honesty and the truth and it is what the relevant marketplace wants and it is the truth.

Let’s see if the [authorities] do.

Just what is the IARDC and give us all NORMAL, TYPICAL operational details

Dear Readers;

As my trial quickly approaches, and the “funny stuff” continues (KDD has a strange email in his exhibits that “must be struck” because it instructs IARDC investigators to pull credit reports on “two Illinois” attorneys, etc.–which is illegal) and we’re starting to pull pubic records (unlike this IARDC we do not pull clandestine credit reports without written authorization from anyone), reporters are asking me what they consider “typical” questions about who and what the IARDC is, and you know what?  I’ve come to realize, what I thought was true wasn’t.

For example, we have previously published that the IARDC apparently isn’t in compliance with state laws requiring annual ethics/financial reports.  We talked to the Sec. of State where they are to go, the IARDC itself and most of the attorneys we have contacted, were rude about it yet admitted they did not do this.

Who is running this place?  Atty Jerome Larkin through SO and MS is the atty that initiates all of  the pleadings filed against myself and Ken, but I have googled for that information and a reporter has asked, but we have yet to find his ethics/reporting disclosure.

Is there a reason for this?

And then, after smelling that fish that appears to be old and stinky, we ask who are these people and how are they “appointed” as declared on their website.  Are they appointed by one party or both? Does the IARDC comply with the Shakman rule that requires a state organization must not hire based upon politics.  I spoke with Atty Shakman, who appears to be the expert in this area and he says he knows nothing about the IARDC and Shakman compliance.

So, who are these people?  How did they come by their jobs, and most important, what salaries do they make?  Other state websites report on salaries paid (google Illinois state employee salaries, the Illinois Controller publishes the checks she writes–good for her–and Gov. Quinn publishes–good for him).  After all the IARDC does not hold a bake sale to regulate the professional licenses of attorneys.  And you know if you want to control money and power, start with the attorneys, for sure.  That’s what the Nazis did.  They learned from prior totalitarian regimes to kick out any law provider that might oppose one’s fascist policies, leaving the people powerless to fight for their rights and for the court system to become a non-entity in a tripartite government system that is supposed to have checks and balances built in (executive, legislative and judicial branches)

The IARDC has no transparency in this area.  It does not publish salaries (though I have heard they are in the reasonable range of $50,000 to about $180,000 for the jobs there).  They are said to have about 50 employees, then they have non paid Inquiry Board (that votes on whether to file a complaint), a non paid Tribunal (that hears disciplianry complaints) and a Review Board that approves decisions made by the Tribunals.

But if there is no transparency, and we don’t know how these 50+ people are selected and we don’t ask them to do yearly ethics and financials disclosures, then no matter how many levels you can dream up to “look authentic” pack it with your friends and co-conspirators, you are left with something that is dysfunctional at it’s very roots.

Maybe I grew up in Chicago, have read the Chicago Tribune and Suntimes for decades and seen dozens and dozens of politicians, judges and lawyers going to club fed med for outright bribes, payola and “pay to play” schemes I’m just paranoid and skeptical.  BUT if there is really transparency at the IARDC, they would publish salaries, they would publish they are in compliance with Shakman and show how that is, they would publish.

The [this agency] annual report for 2012 is published on their website.  It does not talk about ethics/financial disclosures (some employees at the [this agency] have told us they are exempt because they are a private organization and not part of the state at all–but they regulate a public monopoly–law licenses), some attorneys were upset they were not told they had to do this when they looked up the law, others were rude and slammed the phone down.

I guess if you talk enough about other’s unethical behavior and post rules for everyone else, that can easily hide the fact you don’t do the same.

I challenge the IARDC today to do the right thing and publish those reports online for each employee for each year they worked at the IARDC.  If it’s a bad report, so be it.  Also, they should publish annual salaries and how much has been paid to each employee for past years.

THEN, if all that turns out okay, then they will be qualified to judge ME.

But watch and see, they won’t do that, they will charge ahead.

And that’s exactly the type of behavior everyone on the probate blogs is questioning.

JoAnne

From KDD, when is it appropriate for you or your agency to take the 5th Amendment

The answer:  1) When someone put a document in your file which is an email to one of your staff asking they “pull credit reports on two Illinois attorneys” (when you have no written authorization from them, and this is a violation of federal law), and

2)  when every other attorney who is an office holder, a judge, in a judicial position, on a board, commission and the like, but for some reason you and your office and staff do not file the requisite annual “Report of Economic Interests” online with the Secretary of State in response to an Ethics Law revised in 2009!

That’s when.

Ken pointed this out to me today that the request to destroy an important document in a file and make sure neither you nor your staff is reporting annually on “Economic Interests” is just like taking the 5th amendment, right?

Their rule:  If you break the law, do NOT tell anyone.

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Oct 14, 2013 9:40 PM
To: “janet_c_phelan@yahoo.com”
Cc: JoAnne Denison , “lawrence@Lhyman.com” , Eric Holder , Harry Heckert , j ditkowsky , Tim NASGA , NASGA , probate sharks , , jim , “ACLU@ACLU.ORG”
Subject: Re: F2F–Radio segment on government attorneys violating law, shutting down ethical lawyers

please allow me to thank you for your support.
What always amazes me is the fact that the people picked to be the guardians of my virginity, ethics, et al almost always seem to be more deficient then me.
The failure to file financial disclosure statements is terrible as people who claim to be ethical should meet the test of Caesar’s wife.     However, in recent weeks in addition to discovering a ‘smoking gun letter’  an [entity] moved before the Review Board to remove a document attached to [an agency] exhibit 3 from the record and destroy it.    He falsely claimed that the document had gotten into the file by inadvertence.
If you believe that one – can I interest you in the Brooklyn Bridge – I can get you a great price.    To have a document admitted into evidence the two attorneys for the [this agency] had to examine it.    In addition the document has to be submitted to the attorneys for the respondent.   Finally the triers of fact have to examine it.    Assuming that none of the staff examined the document 7 people examined the document before it was admitted into evidence.     (It is my memory that when exhibit 3 was admitted into evidence the offending document was not attached – that means that the record was tampered with!    Tampering with evidence is clearly not ethical – in fact it has aspects of criminality.)
Ok – assume that all 7 of us saw the document and said nothing.    The arrogance of asking for a document to be removed from the file and destroyed is quite unusual.    In fact removing documents is ‘contempt’ and ‘destroying the documents’ is criminal.    Yes, the Review panel granted the motion.    Based upon the obvious bias and the obvious wrongfulness I moved to dismiss and also for the panel to recuse themselves based upon their patent bias.    This did not happen!    The panel however modified their order to place the offending document under ‘seal!’
We need that HONEST complete and comprehensive investigation of ‘elder cleansing.’
Ken Ditkowsky

Let’s play a guessing game..

The winner will get a Whole Food $20 gift card if they also can document they told the [an agency] this too at the same time.

If you go to the website: http://www.ilsos.gov/economicinterest/economicinterest

You will see where you can get a copy of all the ethics reporting forms filed with the Secretary of State in relation to the Government Ethics Act of 2009 where 900 state agencies and boards and offices have to file an annual detailed Ethics Form.

There is a pull down menu, so I thought I would look for all the agencies, boards, offices and positions that an attorney can or must hold.

I cam up with this list from the pull down menu:

1) attorney general

2) states attorney appellate prosecutor

3) candidate for:  — appellate court judges

4)                           — supreme court judge

5)                           — attorney general

6)  Judicial Inquiry Board (staff, I presume)

7)  Judicial Inquiry Board Member

8)  Professional Registration Committees and Boards (IDPR)

9) State Appellate Defender

10) State Appellate Prosecutor.

Yep, you would think that would cover all those attorneys out there that should file a 3 page form to show they don’t do unethical things like get bribes from lobbyists, have others take out or pay off their mortgages, give them interesting things–like cash.

So, who is missing from the list?  First accurate answer gets the $20 gift card.

How is it all these other attorneys and agencies are on this list, and the judges do extremely detailed reports to the Ill. Supreme Ct. under Ill. Sup. Ct. Rule 68.

Who or what is giving this group of about 50+ attorneys who are in charge of a very powerful agency, a complete pass.  Like free parking money.  Like go around the board over and over for free and collect $200.

Who is doing this?

Janet C Phelan asks “why isn’t the ARDC doing detailed ethics/reporting”

Can anyone answer that question?  All judges have to do it.  All Boards and Commissions have to do it per Ill. State Law and the Illinois Constitution.

What IS going on at the ARDC and can anyone get an answer out of them other than “we are exempt?”  Because they say so?

Download and listen to Janet Phalen’s comments on Blog Talk Radio about the ARDC and the “funny stuff” that is going on.  If you think they have some explaining to do, CALL THEM.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6FbJzwtHocwc1BCbHpPelBxX00/edit?usp=sharing

cite the Illinois Constitution.  The ARDC stands for (and I won’t tell you what my probate victims say that it stands for)  Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission.  The Illinois Constitution creates a Court System in the document and the Ill. Supreme court creates the ARDC which is a state “Commission”

ARTICLE XIII
GENERAL PROVISIONS

SECTION 1. DISQUALIFICATION FOR PUBLIC OFFICE
***

SECTION 2.  STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS
All candidates for or holders of state offices and all
members of a Commission or Board created by this Constitution
shall file a verified statement of their economic interests,
as provided by law. The General Assembly by law may impose a
similar requirement upon candidates for, or holders of,
offices in units of local government and school districts.
Statements shall be filed annually with the Secretary of
State and shall be available for inspection by the public.
The General Assembly by law shall prescribe a reasonable time
for filing the statement. Failure to file a statement within
the time prescribed shall result in ineligibility for, or
forfeiture of, office. This Section shall not be construed as
limiting the authority of any branch of government to
establish and enforce ethical standards for that branch.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)

Note that supervision of the courts (and therefore attorneys) also comes from the Illinois State Constitution.

ARTICLE VI – Judiciary

SECTION 16. ADMINISTRATION
General administrative and supervisory authority over all
courts is vested in the Supreme Court and shall be exercised
by the Chief Justice in accordance with its rules. The
Supreme Court shall appoint an administrative director and
staff, who shall serve at its pleasure, to assist the Chief
Justice in his duties.

And from state law:

For Judges, these detailed records at kept under Rule 68 at the Illinois Supreme Court Clerk’s offices and must be available to review during normal business hours in both Chicago and Springfield.  You can’t get the information on the internet yet.

For other state employees, they file with the Secretary of State’s offices here:

http://www.ilsos.gov/economicinterest/economicinterest

Both the Secretary of State and the Illinois Supreme Court say they have no reporting from the ARDC  Commission.

The real question is, how is that?

Under the state link:  Report Misconduct:

http://appointments.illinois.gov/reportMisconduct.cfm

It gives a link to the Inspector General for the State of Illinois, but when we write, email, fax and call about the Sykes case, at first they say “they will look into it, thanks for contacting us” but a few weeks later we get, “sorry, we don’t do that.”

From the 2009 Illinois Ethics Act:

ARTICLE 4A.

DISCLOSURE OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS.

(from the Illinois Governmental Ethics Act & State Officials and Employees Ethics Act as amended in 2009)

S 4A-101. Persons required to file. The following persons shall file verified written statements of economic interests, as provided in this Article:

(a) Members of the General Assembly and candidates for nomination or election to the General Assembly.

*****************

(c) Members of a Commission or Board created by the Illinois Constitution, and candidates for nomination or election to such Commission or Board.

*********

(e) Holders of, and candidates for nomination or election to, the office of judge or associate judge of the Circuit Court and the office of judge of the Appellate or Supreme Court.

********

(4) have authority for the approval of professional licenses;

(5) have responsibility with respect to the financial inspection of regulated nongovernmental entities;

(6) adjudicate, arbitrate, or decide any judicial or administrative proceeding, or review the adjudication, arbitration or decision of any judicial or administrative proceeding within the authority of the State; or

(7) have supervisory responsibility for 20 or more employees of the State.

It looks like the ARDC is instantaneously violating several of these laws, and upon a cursory glance of just SOME public records (will be published later),  it looks like the ARDC actually has some house cleaning to do.

Living in Chicago and Illinois for 90% of my life has made me nothing but disgusted will all of this, and I think most of us will agree

and before you think it’s unusual or strange to “report on your ethics in detail and yearly” and the let world know what you have been up to:

from David Orr’s website:

Ethics Filing Online

In accordance with the Illinois Governmental Ethics Act, more than 900 units of government and 22,000 public officials and employees must submit ethics filings to the Clerk’s office. Government agencies provide a list of people who must file a Statement of Economic Interests. Beginning spring 2011, those people will be able to file their questionnaires online. Finally, the public will have instant access to both sets of filings.

Go ahead and CALL THE ARDC, FAX THEM, EMAIL THEM, ASK THEM WHY THE ATTORNEYS THERE DO NOT REPORT–unlike 22,000 other state employees and hundreds of state judges.

 

Then, I think you will find the answer of why the ARDC does not report, and why they are prosecuting HONEST and ETHICAL attorneys who BLOG about corruption.

 

IF THIS IS NOT A SCANDAL AND A PUBLIC OUTRAGE, A BREACH OF THE PUBLIC’S TRUST IN THE LAWS AND LAWYERS, I HONESTLY DO NOT KNOW WHAT IS.  Write or call the ARDC, demand they become HONEST and report.

Breaking news–KDD at before Review Panel today!

Hearing for KDD

Exceptions have been filed by the appellant.

Mr. D has 20 min to present, administrator 20 min to respond and then 10 min response.

KDD starts

I am here as an atty as a private citizen.  I was never involved in Sykes as an atty in until I was brought in on the sanction motion.  This was vacated and they ruled that I was a private citizen in that case.  I am a private citizen and as such I am entitled to a full complement of rights under the first amendmentto the US constitution

My position is recognized by not only by most jurists, but also by the state of Illinois and ask that you please read 750 ILCS sec 110 (refers to the Illinois Citizens Participation act) wherein a statement has been made by the Illinois Legislature.  It is stated therein that public policy of the State of Illinois is to foster free speech, arguments, debates, positions, opinions, etc. and that this is vital to the preservation of an open and free democracy.

Illinois has a guardianship law that deems to protect senior citizens from abuse, in particular the abuse of being railroaded, just as Mary Sykes was, and this statute exists so that judges and attorneys can try to avoid the improper imposition of guardianship.  I have gone into those guardianship issues in great detail in my brief and else where.

Referring now to 720 ILCS 4. In particular it says that if I make an abuse claim I am given immunity from prosecution and even disciplinary action.

The position of the ARDC here in this case is in fact 100% out of phase.  The commission never received the right to deal with my first amendment rights.

The supreme court has said nothing about allowing lawyer disciplinary boards being allowed to interfere with my constitutional rights,  and there is stare decisis, and this commission is bound by those rules of law,  just like everyone else is so bound.

The Gentile case was never cited by the Administrator because of the statement by Justice Renquist that disciplinary rules cannot publish actions protected by the first amendment.

I as a citizen am entitled to these first amendment rights.

I am a private citizen in relation to the Sykes case.

All I have done is I made a demand for an honest, complete and comprehensive investigation of elder cleansing.  It is the first cousin to racial and ethnic cleansing–and I need not define those for anyone in this room.  I have the right to make that demand to investigte, I have the right to email Mr. Holder, or any other official concerning the Sykes case.  Nonetheless, I was in a hearing room where I as asked to repent for writing that letter–a letter merely requesting that a complete, honest and thorough investigation be made of the Sykes case.

It is firmly my constitutional right to write that letter.

The US Supreme Curt has reviewed a number of first amendment rights, the latest case is one of the most liberal cases: under Alverez, as a private citizen, I have the right to claim I earned the congressional medal of honor, when in fact I have not.

My first amendment rights extend to virtual child porn under X case.

In the Brown case,  violent video games are allowed.

In Snyder, I can go to a funeral and I can say things that are absolutely appalling to the mourners present.

Citizens United clearly wraps this all up and says that first amendment and content based speech is totally protected and the government may not intrude upon my first amendment free speech rights.

The Supreme Court says that in order to take a case it must be investigated.  Rule 127 says I cannot file a case recklessly.  I must investigate.  In April 2010, when Mary’s friends and family came in and they told me Mary had been unfairly railroaded into a guardianship she opposed, I knew I first had to follow this Rule 127 requirement.  However, Rule 127 is not meant to be a catch 22.  It cannot be argued that I must investigate but if I do, other attorneys may complain I am acting unethically.  This is only an ethical obligation and not a trap for the unwary.

How can it ever be unethical to follow the rules of the court?

If you look at the Sykes case, these statements are backed up by affidavits and declarations, by Gloria Sykes, the sisters and the transcripts of the proceeding.  You will notice that not a single person who had actual knowledge was called to testify.  No person who had actual knowledge of the facts of the theft.   No actual person was asked about the 6 trips to the emergency room.

If you want to look at the gold coins,  Gloria Sykes was a signatory on the safe deposit box.  She had an ownership interest in the box.  Yolada Bakken had told me that the bag of coins was about (gestures) 10″ high and 6″ around and it  that it had 6 inches of gold coins in it.

Carolyn Toerpe was never called, yet she has been accused of stealing from the estate.

What they did was they called GAL Stern who said he served a subpoena.  In this case, because it was a safe deposit box, serving a subpoena means nothing because the bank cannot legally know the contents of a safe deposit box..

Gloria should have testified, Yolanda should have testified, and Kathie should have testified.

The appellate court in Soldini declared that the petitioner had to serve prior 14 days service upon the near relatives to attain jurisdiction.  But in Sykes it should be noted court that two sisters were never disclosed, yet the ARDC did not call Gloria Sykes or Yolanda.

During my hearing there was never any search for the truth, any due process, and search for fairness or justice, was ever undertaken.

In the hearing board’s decision, they said the sisters had knowledge of the (12/07/13) hearing.  But it has to be prior knowledge.

Section 5/11a is to protect the due process rights of Mary Sykes and people like her.

There is supposed to be a hearing.  There was no hearing held.  What there was was an agreement between the two GAL’s and Toerpe’s attorney to have Mary declared incompetent and then Toerpe appointed, which then became part of the findings.

Witnesses were not called.  Testimony was not taken.

Referring to the transcript of Aug 2009, there was no ccp211, this judge had to find Mary Sykes incompetent by clear and convincing evidence, it must meet requirement of 5/11a which has specific requirement to have someone declared incompetent, but according to the evidence deposition of Judge C, she states for the record, if counsel is having trouble getting a CCP211 done, the “why don’t we just get another doctor that can do it.”

That is about as close to an announcement promoting doctor shopping as you can get.

If you look at the 14 days notice requirement, you will find something very similar.

Not only that, but Judge Connors, in her deposition was asked, What would happen if there was no jurisdiction? And she answered:  If I found out about it, I would vacate and then I would get the same result.

As a citizen I have right to complain about that.

This is a state where 2 governors were recently .put in prison, 15 sitting judges in Greylord went to prison.

Everyone know in order to get someone before the court you have to serve them with a summons.

It says in the Illinois Probate Act what you have to do to serve a summons.

The sheriffs office denies they served a summons.

There is no evidence of any summons.

You will see they directed an employee to serve at a place in Chicago; however,  mary was living in DuPage county so that was an impossible duty.

The summons must have been in large bold print with a statement of rights, that was never done.

Rule of law equally implies to you I, the probate court and Mary.

The Rules of law have been set forth by the US Supreme Court:

I can make statement untrue about my qualifications,

I can make and propagate virtual child porn, I can provide violent video games to people, I can harass mourners with terrible signs and speeches.

According to this commission I can not complaint about a little old lady being railroaded into a guardianship and deprive her of her human and civil rights.

Let me read the First Amendment to this panel…. Congress shall make no law prohibiting (First amendment read to Board)….and I have the right to petition the government for redress of grievances.  That’s why I wrote Mr. Holder, the AG’s and whomever I could get to take action.

We need to get the Alice Gore investigated.  Why were here gold teeth removed but not inventoried? (This was after she was isolated for 6 months!  This is what M. Solo did to 99 year old Alice Gore.

I have a responsibility to speak out, and it’s the right thing to do.  The people who want to take my license away for doing the right thing are wrong, clearly wrong.

We need to get a complete comprehensive and thorough investigation of these probate cases.

Initial argument ends, the ARDC attorney for the Administrator steps up:

Steven Splitt.

He cites all these cases are all good law with respect to citizens.  However he explains that KDD’s rights are not the same as an ordinary citizen: rather KDD’s rights have been  circumscribed.  The US Sup Ct has never said that you can make false allegations regarding a judge.

Gentile arises out of a Nevada disciplinary action.  The lawyer who represented a criminal defendant, had made a public statement during trial implying that the chief of police had stolen the cocaine.  The NV bar said that the statement would have materially prejudiced a judicial proceeding.

However, the statute had a safe harbor provision and therefore the US Sup Ct said that the statute was not unconstitutional.  What the us supreme court decided was the that the safe harbor was not too vague so as to harm Mr. Gentile’s first amendment rights and therefore the US Sup. Ct. Said the statute would stand and I was not unconstitutional.

Garrison made false statements in his case and the court said constitutional provisions did not protect this.

A lawyer cannot say something false about a court or judge, the lawyer cannot attack a judge.

Everyone understands there are instances when an atty disagrees with the decisions of a judge.

The first amendment protects the person from saying the judge was wrong, but to jump to the idea that the judge was corrupt is entirely different.  If you have no way to jump to corruption based upon the evidence you have knowledge of, that is wrong.

He does not have a objectively fair and reasonable way to claim Stuart and Connors were corrupt.  Both testified that they were not corrupt and did not take any assets from Mary Sykes.

He said that the GAL’s were splitting assets with the judges. (Really?)

Moreover, the Sykes appeal was dismissed because the brief format was in error (Now this is strange, because it’s not in the record), the litigant was given plenty of chances to correct the brief.  (Really?  Where is that in the record?)

No court has even ruled these judge were even wrong.

He was given a responsibility to follow through on the appeal, the appeal was dismissed, they could not file a brief that could follow the rules, and so it was all dismissed.

Lawyers have done this for a number of years, tried to allege corruption and protection under free speech.  This has been going on for a half century in Illinois.

One lawyer immediately jumps to the judge is corrupt.  He jumps to it.  No evidence, no cause.

The first amendment does not protect the false statement when in fact it is false and reckless.

The hearing board concluded KDD’s statements were in fact false.

The testimony of administrator’s witnesses were credible.  Judges Stuart and Connors denied receiving any compensation, and AS and CF denied responsibility for wrongdoing.

Justice Connors denied everything KDD said about her.

He didn’t come up with anything unreasonable or unjust in the Sykes case.

He never showed during his trial any objectively reasonable basis for his statements.

The finding were not erroneous or against the manifest weight of the evidence.

The sanction was appropriate.

He has not denied it.

A half century of law, and multiple instances of harming a judge’s integrity with baseless statements are grounds for discipline.

And in these case, they always end with a long suspension or disbarrment.

He then cites Kozel and other cases–cases where the attorneys called the judges names and insulted them–these are not apposite to KDD’s case.

The sanction recommendation comports with disbarrment.

One of the Board asks about the Duzen case and is there a burden type of shifting.  Splitt responds that there is no burden shifting used in this case.  It talked about burdens of proof, but not shifting.  The administrator did not go to hearing and say you cannot go to hearing and try to  prove all of your allegations made as true.

There was no reasonable basis to say these were true.  He had no reasonable, factual basis.

He concludes.

KDD is back on for ten minutes.

In 1961 I was first sworn in I took an oath to defend the constitution.  It is still my assertion that the Supreme Ct has not granted the ARDC rights to deal in this particular type of case, and determine whether or not (with respect to the first amendment) that attys are second class citizens.  In the Gentile case, Justice Rhenquist made it clear that attorneys have first amendment rights.  That’s a non issue.

As far as appeals are concerned, I have no standing.  I have never filed an appearance in that case or an appeal.  I stand as an ordinary citizen to the Sykes case.

The fact that a lay person can’t get an appellate brief formatted propertly doesn’t make all the wrongdoing at the trial court level right or make it go away..

You have deposition of Judge Connors.  Read what is required to be done. Judge Connors made it clear she did not have to follow all those laws and rules.

The appellate courts says I am a private citizen with respect to the Sykes case.  I am a citizen.  There is nothing in there that makes an attorney second class citizen.  There is nothing that says a citizen cannot complain about an elected official, and as the Gillespie case points out, public officials are subject to free reign as to discussion of (the quality or lack thereof with respect) their job performance in office and they cannot complain. The Gillespie case was right.

The Administrator cites the Sawyer case in his favor, but it is not.

The Sawyer case involved an attorney who was trying a case and when the case was over she gave a lecture about her experiences, and she was very critical of the judge and the law and the Hawaii bar got all hot and bothered about it.

The US Supreme Court said that she had a right to do this under the First Amendment

There has been no indication that a lawyer is a second class citizen whatsoever.

And a 4 year suspension for a 77 years old lawyer is preposterous.

And the suspension is being imposed only for doing what the Ill. Sup. court rules requires me to do.

Court one says I wrote a benign letter to Dr. Patel.  They said that he was intimidated by my letter.  They didn’t even ask him if he was intimidated. (It appeared during trial that he didn’t remember the letter or even reading it).

They have the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence.

How do you protect the public when the court is saying openly, “let’s find another doctor” when the first won’t cooperate, or Judge Connors says in her deposition with respect to jurisdiction it does not matter because if the case were dismiss for lack of jurisdiction we just would have held another hearing and come to the same result.  That is about as clear a case as you can get of impropriety.

Since the judge is an elected official, I have the right to complaint that this is wrong.

No one can come to you (as a lawyer) and say to you you can’t talk (openly and honestly) to about  this case.

If you are not involved in the case then you can say what you want until the cows come home.

You don’t even have to look at whether the words are true or false. (Or if the GAL’s might cry and wet their pants later over what you said).

The whole situation revolves around a complaint I made to the US AG and other people complaining about a little old laday being taken out of her home, brought into another facility and placed there in derogation of her liberty and property rights and placed in jeopardy.

If you look at the statue of what a guardianship is supposed to be it is only to be used to the extent necessary to protect the ward, orders and decisions should be made only to the extent that the ward herself cannot make a reasoned decision.

When this lady was taken from her home and place in Du Page (without her consent or approval), this was tantamount to giving her a death sentence.  As a lawyer, you have a duty to speak out.  As a judge you have a duty to speak out and say this is wrong.  As a moral person you have a duty to speak out.  I have to face myself in the mirror and if I see what is going on in this case and I see Mary Sykes removed from her home, and isolated and attys should speak out and judges should speak out.  Do you know what that judge did to Mary Sykes, do you know what this judge did to Mrs. Gore and Mrs. Wyman?

There is nothing in our constitution that says lawyers cannot speak out, they must speak out.

What about the limits of our free speech.  What about the cases cited by the Administrator in his argument?

Well, the cases he cited were clearly over ruled in recent U.S. Sup. Ct.  decisions Alvarez, Ashcroft, by Citizens United, I believe have clearly overruled any unnecessary restrictions on content based speech.

Also those cases the Administrator can all be distinguished because in each of those cases, the attorney was a lawyer on the case.

Just because I am a lawyer and I comment on a case, does not make me a second class citizen.

Bussy v Ferguson is no longer the law, because just people rejected the idea of creating a 2nd class of citizenship for certain undesireable people.

Buck v. Bell likewise has rejected the notion that certain disabled people should be considered second class in society.

Going back to when I first investigated this case at the behest of Mary and friends and family, at that time I was looking to being an attorney .  Under FRCP Rule 11 and Ill. Sup. Ct. Rule 127 I had a duty to investigate, I heard what Mary’s friends and family were saying about railroading Mary. So I sent out a letter to her doctor. The letter was very benign.  Dr. Patel was never in any way intimidated.

From the court:  Whatever the letter says it says, did you speak with Mary before that?

KDD replies that he was hired by Mary thru Gloria.

Ding the correct answer is: Mary asked Gloria to hire KDD and he responded.  FURTHER, Gloria was the POA for Mary and she had the right to do so.

If I did not investigate then I would be sanctioned under Rules 127

No further questions or comments and the oral argument concludes

BUT AS THE BOARD WAS WALKING OUT THE ROOM, AND ASK KEN TURNED TO US, EVERYONE IN THE GALLEY STOOD UP AND GAVE KEN A STANDING OVATIONS.

Okay, it took me awhile, I would have dropped my laptop.

JoAnne

What to do when assets are uninventoried or “fall off” the accounting statement? 1099 them!

One of the most common complaints I hear from probate victims is that assets (often tens of thousands or more) are not inventoried in probate, and/or assets suddenly “fall off” the yearly accounting and the court looks the other way, and no matter how much the victim screams and yells, hollers at the top of their lungs there is theft, embezzlement and fraud going on, the court looks the other way, and the GAL’s and plenary guardians rub their hands together with glee, over whatever split they get for doing this.

 

The solution from Ken?  Send them a 1099!

 

Great idea and thanks Ken.  Let them explain it to the IRS and where the money went.  That’s not my job or yours.

Seriously. I get a choice? Please be with KDD on Friday in his time of need…

Friday at 11 am with oral argument, that’s when Ken goes before the Review Board at One Prudential Plaza, 15th floor with the ARDC Review Board over his case where he did NOTHING wrong except try to investigate the Sykes case, met up with two nasty GAL’s, one of whom told him outright, you investigate this case and I will ensure you are disbarred–just like a wise guy, and the rest is history.

What did we all find after that fateful investigation?  A probate court without jurisdiction–operating now for 4 years, no discovery permitted by the younger daughter Gloria and millions of dollars in gold coins missing, a safe deposit box in the name of Gloria and Mary drilled out in early 2010, GAL’s that told the court repeatedly “the coins are imaginary, your honor”, GAL’s that told a tribunal “they investigated” by serving subpoenas and then the Record on Appeal comes out and it shows that there were no subpoenas served in fact, no return of service, no certificate of completeness.  I can go on and on about Sykes, but I won’t.

Then we get an ARDC that says no atty can talk about corruption or we have to apologize at the same time we do that and try to convince people it doesn’t exist–despite the fact that most of you, my readers, come from the probate blogs and know that the probate blogs have been ablaze for years on corruption — corruption that goes to the highest levels, from the trial courts up to your state supreme courts and with no explanation and no relief.  Millions of dollars in uninventoried assets missing, tens of thousands that “fall off” inventories and yearly accountings and the judges look the other way and the GAL’s and guardians and conservators rub their hands together and cackle with glee. They get what percent for doing that?  Now I have an experienced investigative reporter from Westchester New York, former atty Dean Loren, telling me that it looks like the loot is going to campaign contributions and both parties are doing it!  I have Janet Phelan, an experienced reporter telling me to pull property records and in her case she found definite trends of money laundering from the dirtiest judges in Calfornia–and got them off her case.  She found pulling Judicial Ethics and Financial disclosures–which must be detailed by law, is the best way hands down to get rid of the dirt.  Then there are the people who ask me their judges that are absolutely awful and unjust were never elected.  What’s up with that? Then I am told by my sources that the powers that be have an honest and clean attorney elected to be a judge, suddenly he retires after a couple months, and then what is appointed is dirt.

So I guess attorneys have to apologize for talking about corruption, and I am sorry I have to do that.  I really am.  I can’t practice law effectively, I can’t explain this to my clients, because they turn on me and ask what are YOU doing about all this.  I have no answer. Ken and I can write to the AG’s the FBI and we can blog, but that’s about it.  We are not prosecutors, true investigators with databases handy at our fingertips, etc.

At some point, the system just gets caught up in itself and there is no answer.

Ken’s oral argument is Friday, my trial is on October 28, 2013 and I got told by a former ARDC attorney that the ARDC never gives up, they keep on going until they get you–despite all evidence to the contrary!  I’ve been an attorney for 27 years and I’ve always believe in truth and justice, and when it turns out your client’s case is a dud, graciously get rid of it or get yourself out of the case.  Don’t ever get involved in injustice because it’s just bad karma and the universe WILL make you pay for that, and the longer you go on, the larger the repayment will be.

It’s always easier, I have found to tell the truth, to act with justice and honor, to tell your clients you are an officer of the court and as such you won’t suborn perjury, fight a useless fight for their own greed and evil, and their case just fell apart and you recommend a stipulated dismissal with prejudice.

I’m not going to tell the ARDC what to do, but if this truly is their policy–go after honest and ethical attorneys, don’t stop when you are faced with the undeniable truth–it’s bad karma and never works out in the end.

But the other thing I know is that you can’t interfere with someone else’s karma and you can’t control people.  That’s up to the universe who will always be a much stricter school marm than you or I will always be.

In the meantime, Mr. Ken Cooper of Probate Sharks, another famous Probate Blog that decries the lack of justice in our nation’s probate courts, provides us today with the following sentiments:

On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 8:14 AM, JoAnne M Denison <jdenison@surfree.com> wrote:
Dear Ken;

You are way too sweet.  Okay to publish?

thanks

joanne
—–Original Message—–
From: Lucius Verenus
Sent: Oct 10, 2013 7:29 AM
To: kenneth ditkowsky
Cc: JANET PHELAN , JoAnne M Denison , Atty Ken Ditkowsky , Lisa Vogel GNT title , Robert Voegel , “tips@tribune.com” , SUNTIMES , “60m@cbsnews.com” <60m@cbsnews.com>, NASGA , j ditkowsky
Subject: Re: Seriously. A choice?

There are times and events where individuals and small groups of people stand fast against tyranny and corruption. Some of the heroes are historical figures and many are lost in the fog of history.  Famous notable examples are the Spartans at Thermopylae, The Alamo, von Staufenberg of “The Hitler Bomb Plot” and Sir Thomas Mann.
Few, will note or remember the sacrifice of the “Students against Hitler”, Hildegard Gruenigan, Krisof Probst, Axel Denk and Klaus Schneider. This heroic group printed flyers denouncing Hitler and his evil cabal.  They all paid for their efforts with their lives and died in concentration camps. The evil they fought against was ultimately exposed and destroyed.
All of the above paid severe penalties for their heroism and courage but made their mark in the ultimate victory against tyranny an corruption  We in Illinois, have our own examples of courage in Ken Ditkowsky and JoAnne Denison and we are morally responsible to provide them with every support possible.  Please be with them in their time of need…tomorrow.  KC

On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 8:00 PM, kenneth ditkowsky <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com> wrote:

I made the choice on November 28, 1961 – I have a need to be able to look into the mirror and like the person who is reflected therein.    I have from time to time been offered ‘bribes’ to back off from a legal position and have refused in every case.    Intimidation has not worked either, and it certainly is not going to work now.
The material uncovered warrants an HONEST complete and comprehensive investigation.   The hearing panel finding that Mary’s two sisters had knowledge of whatever competency hearing was allegedly held – there was none – needs investigation.      As neither sister was called, how could a panel consisting of two lawyers reach such a conclusion?   Lawyers know about evidence.    What is even more serious is the fact that the hearing panel never stated that the knowledge was ‘prior’ knowledge!
When facts are being made up intelligent prevaricators
Ken Ditkowsky
On Wednesday, October 9, 2013 5:59 PM, JANET PHELAN <janetcphelan@yahoo.com> wrote:
But this goes to the very core of the problem. “Sell out and we will ensure your continued viability. Stick to your guns and you are sooooo…outta here.”
And it works so well, with most people. Who wants to spend the rest of their lives scrapping for a living, having to explain their lack of professional standing? Who wants to live in a cabin on a mountain in Mexico?
Most people are grounded in their economic and professional status. When people are otherwise grounded, in a moral or ethical belief system, they become dispensable.
Janet
From: JoAnne M Denison <jdenison@surfree.com>
To: Atty Ken Ditkowsky <ken@ditkowskylawoffice.com>; Janet Phelan <janetcphelan@yahoo.com>;
Sent: Wednesday, October 9, 2013 4:55 PM
Subject: Seriously. A choice?
So I’m talking to E*******, a former ARDC attorney and she said I probably  have to make a choice whether I like my law license better of if I want to blog about and expose corruption and clean up our court system.SERIOUSLY????

Is there a choice there?

That might be great for an opening argument.  Who in their right mind asks a question like that, and it was coming from a former ARDC attorney!!!

The real question, is how do I explain all of this then to my clients.  Well, I used to blog about corruption so we could clean up the courts so that you, my client could get a fair shake in this courtroom today, but then the ARDC asked me to make a choice between my law license or cleaning up the court system, and so that’s why when we get to court EXPECT THE JUDGE AND OPPOSING COUNSEL TO BE UTTERLY CORRUPT AND THE ARDC HAS MANDATED THIS WITH IMPUNITY.

She really just wanted to get off the phone after she realized where the entire conversation was going and how there was no real answer to any of this.  Her excuse was that she has never done a case blogging about corruption and I should find an attorney with experience in that!

another day in ARDC paradise.

joanne

KDD’S PUBLIC CHEAT SHEET ON ILLINOIS PROBATE LAW

KEN DITKOWSKY’S CHEAT SHEET ON PROBATE LAW
     
    Public Policy
    ·        § 5. “Public policy. Pursuant to the fundamental philosophy of the American constitutional form of government, it is declared to be the public policy of the State of Illinois that the constitutional rights of citizens and organizations to be involved and participate freely in the process of government must be encouraged and safeguarded with great diligence. The information, reports, opinions, claims, arguments, and other expressions provided by citizens are vital to effective law enforcement, the operation of government, the making of public policy and decisions, and the continuation of representative democracy. The laws, courts, and other agencies of this State must provide the utmost protection for the free exercise of these rights of petition, speech, association, and government participation.
    “Civil actions for money damages have been filed against citizens and organizations of this State as a result of their valid exercise of their constitutional rights to petition, speak freely, associate freely, and otherwise participate in and communicate with government. There has been a disturbing increase in lawsuits termed “Strategic Lawsuits against Public Participation” in government or “SLAPPs” as they are popularly called.
    The threat of SLAPPs significantly chills and diminishes citizen participation in government, voluntary public service, and the exercise of these important constitutional rights. This abuse of the judicial process can and has been used as a means of intimidating, harassing, or punishing citizens and organizations for involving themselves in public affairs.
    “It is in the public interest and it is the purpose of this Act to strike a balance between the rights of persons to file lawsuits for injury and the constitutional rights of persons to petition, speak freely, associate freely, and otherwise participate in government; to protect and encourage public participation in government to the maximum extent permitted by law; to establish an efficient process for identification and adjudication of SLAPPs; and to provide for attorney’s fees and costs to prevailing movants”.  735 ILCS 110/5
     
    “A person making a report under this Act in the belief that it is in the alleged victim’s best interest shall be immune from criminal or civil liability or professional disciplinary action on account of making the report, notwithstanding any requirements concerning the confidentiality of information with respect to such eligible adult which might otherwise be applicable.”   320 ILCS 20/4[1]
    For public policy statement see:  County of DeWitt  v. Am Fed’N of   298 Ill App3d 634
    Statutory Criterion:
      Criterion:
     
    § 11a-3. Adjudication of disability; Power to appoint guardian.
    Upon the filing of a petition by a reputable person or by the alleged disabled person himself or on its own motion, the court may adjudge a person to be a disabled person, but only if it has been demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that the person is a disabled person as defined in Section 11a-2. If the court adjudges a person to be a disabled person, the court may appoint (1) a guardian of his person, if it has been demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that because of his disability he lacks sufficient understanding or capacity to make or communicate responsible decisions concerning the care of his person, or (2) a guardian of his estate, if it has been demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that because of his disability he is unable to manage his estate or financial affairs, or (3) a guardian of his person and of his estate.
     
    ·        Guardianship shall be utilized only as is necessary to promote the well-being of the disabled person, to protect him from neglect, exploitation, or abuse, and to encourage development of his maximum self-reliance and independence. Guardianship shall be ordered only to the extent necessitated by the individual’s actual mental, physical and adaptive limitations.   755 ILCS 5/11a-3
     
    Venue
    ·         
    ·        § 11a-7. Venue. If the alleged ward is a resident of this State, the proceeding shall be instituted in the court of the county in which he resides. If the alleged ward is not a resident of this State, the proceeding shall be instituted in the court of a county in which his real or personal estate is located.   755 ILCS 5/11a-7
     
    Petition:
     
    § 11a -8. Petition. The petition for adjudication of disability and for the appointment of a guardian of the estate or the person or both of an alleged disabled person must state, if known or reasonably ascertainable: (a) the relationship and interest of the petitioner to the respondent; (b) the name, date of birth, and place of residence of the respondent; (c) the reasons for the guardianship; (d) the name and post office address of the respondent’s guardian, if any, or of the respondent’s agent or agents appointed under the Illinois Power of Attorney Act,1 if any; (e) the name and post office addresses of the nearest relatives of the respondent in the following order: (1) the spouse and adult children, parents and adult brothers and sisters, if any; if none, (2) nearest adult kindred known to the petitioner; (f) the name and address of the person with whom or the facility in which the respondent is residing; (g) the approximate value of the personal and real estate; (h) the amount of the anticipated annual gross income and other receipts; (i) the name, post office address and in case of an individual, the age, relationship to the respondent and occupation of the proposed guardian. In addition, if the petition seeks the appointment of a previously appointed standby guardian as guardian of the disabled person, the petition must also state: (j) the facts concerning the standby guardian’s previous appointment and (k) the date of death of the disabled person’s guardian or the facts concerning the consent of the disabled person’s guardian to the appointment of the standby guardian as guardian, or the willingness and ability of the disabled person’s guardian to make and carry out day-to-day care decisions concerning the disabled person. A petition for adjudication of disability and the appointment of a guardian of the estate or the person or both of an alleged disabled person may not be dismissed or withdrawn without leave of the court.
    755 ILCS 5/11a-8
     
    Obtaining Jurisdiction.
     
    ·        Procedure and Jurisdiction 11a – 10
    11a-10. Procedures preliminary to hearing.
    o   (a) Upon the filing of a petition pursuant to Section 11a-8, the court shall set a date and place for hearing to take place within 30 days. The court shall appoint a guardian ad litem to report to the court concerning the respondent’s best interests consistent with the provisions of this Section, except that the appointment of a guardian ad litem shall not be required when the court determines that such appointment is not necessary for the protection of the respondent or a reasonably informed decision on the petition. If the guardian ad litem is not a licensed attorney, he or she shall be qualified, by training or experience, to work with or advocate for the developmentally disabled, mentally ill, physically disabled, the elderly, or persons disabled because of mental deterioration, depending on the type of disability that is alleged in the petition. The court may allow the guardian ad litem reasonable compensation. The guardian ad litem may consult with a person who by training or experience is qualified to work with persons with a developmental disability, persons with mental illness, or physically disabled persons, or persons disabled because of mental deterioration, depending on the type of disability that is alleged. The guardian ad litem shall personally observe the respondent prior to the hearing and shall inform him orally and in writing of the contents of the petition and of his rights under Section 11a-11. The guardian ad litem shall also attempt to elicit the respondent’s position concerning the adjudication of disability, the proposed guardian, a proposed change in residential placement, changes in care that might result from the guardianship, and other areas of inquiry deemed appropriate by the court. Notwithstanding any provision in the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Confidentiality Act or any other law, a guardian ad litem shall have the right to inspect and copy any medical or mental health record of the respondent which the guardian ad litem deems necessary, provided that the information so disclosed shall not be utilized for any other purpose nor be redisclosed except in connection with the proceedings. At or before the hearing, the guardian ad litem shall file a written report detailing his or her observations of the respondent, the responses of the respondent to any of the inquires detailed in this Section, the opinion of the guardian ad litem or other professionals with whom the guardian ad litem consulted concerning the appropriateness of guardianship, and any other material issue discovered by the guardian ad litem. The guardian ad litem shall appear at the hearing and testify as to any issues presented in his or her report.
    o   (b) The court (1) may appoint counsel for the respondent, if the court finds that the interests of the respondent will be best served by the appointment, and (2) shall appoint counsel upon respondent’s request or if the respondent takes a position adverse to that of the guardian ad litem. The respondent shall be permitted to obtain the appointment of counsel either at the hearing or by any written or oral request communicated to the court prior to the hearing. The summons shall inform the respondent of this right to obtain appointed counsel. The court may allow counsel for the respondent reasonable compensation.
    o   (c) If the respondent is unable to pay the fee of the guardian ad litem or appointed counsel, or both, the court may enter an order for the petitioner to pay all such fees or such amounts as the respondent or the respondent’s estate may be unable to pay. However, in cases where the Office of State Guardian is the petitioner, consistent with Section 30 of the Guardianship and Advocacy Act,1 where the public guardian is the petitioner, consistent with Section 13-5 of the Probate Act of 1975, where an elder abuse provider agency is the petitioner, pursuant to Section 9 of the Elder Abuse and Neglect Act,2 where the Department of Human Services Office of Inspector General is the petitioner, consistent with Section 45 of the Abuse of Adults with Disabilities Intervention Act, or where the Department of Children and Family Services is the petitioner under subparagraph (d) of subsection (1) of Section 2-27 of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987, no guardian ad litem or legal fees shall be assessed against the Office of State Guardian, the public guardian, the elder abuse provider agency, the Department of Human Services Office of Inspector General, or the Department of Children and Family Services.
    o   (d) The hearing may be held at such convenient place as the court directs, including at a facility in which the respondent resides.
    o   (e) Unless he is the petitioner, the respondent shall be personally served with a copy of the petition and a summons not less than 14 days before the hearing.
     
    o   The summons shall be printed in large, bold type and shall include the following notice:
     
    o   NOTICE OF RIGHTS OF RESPONDENT
     
    o   You have been named as a respondent in a guardianship petition asking that you be declared a disabled person. If the court grants the petition, a guardian will be appointed for you. A copy of the guardianship petition is attached for your convenience.
    o   The date and time of the hearing are:
    o   The place where the hearing will occur is:
    o   The Judge’s name and phone number is:
    o   If a guardian is appointed for you, the guardian may be given the right to make all important personal decisions for you, such as where you may live, what medical treatment you may receive, what places you may visit, and who may visit you. A guardian may also be given the right to control and manage your money and other property, including your home, if you own one. You may lose the right to make these decisions for yourself.
    o   You have the following legal rights:
    o   (1) You have the right to be present at the court hearing.
    o   (2) You have the right to be represented by a lawyer, either one that you retain, or one appointed by the Judge.
    o   (3) You have the right to ask for a jury of six persons to hear your case.
    o   (4) You have the right to present evidence to the court and to confront and cross-examine witnesses.
    o   (5) You have the right to ask the Judge to appoint an independent expert to examine you and give an opinion about your need for a guardian.
    o   (6) You have the right to ask that the court hearing be closed to the public.
    o   (7) You have the right to tell the court whom you prefer to have for your guardian.
    o   You do not have to attend the court hearing if you do not want to be there. If you do not attend, the Judge may appoint a guardian if the Judge finds that a guardian would be of benefit to you. The hearing will not be postponed or canceled if you do not attend.
    o   IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT YOU ATTEND THE HEARING IF YOU DO NOT WANT A GUARDIAN OR IF YOU WANT SOMEONE OTHER THAN THE PERSON NAMED IN THE GUARDIANSHIP PETITION TO BE YOUR GUARDIAN. IF YOU DO NOT WANT A GUARDIAN OF IF YOU HAVE ANY OTHER PROBLEMS, YOU SHOULD CONTACT AN ATTORNEY OR COME TO COURT AND TELL THE JUDGE.
    o   Service of summons and the petition may be made by a private person 18 years of age or over who is not a party to the action.
    o    
    o   (f) Notice of the time and place of the hearing shall be given by the petitioner by mail or in person to those persons, including the proposed guardian, whose names and addresses appear in the petition and who do not waive notice, not less than 14 days before the hearing.      755 ILCS 5/11a-10      see:  Sodoni  172 Ill App2d 1055
    ·          Steinfeld 158 Ill 2d 1
     
     
    ·        Hearing:
    (e) At the hearing the court shall inquire regarding: (1) the nature and extent of respondent’s general intellectual and physical functioning; (2) the extent of the impairment of his adaptive behavior if he is a person with a developmental disability, or the nature and severity of his mental illness if he is a person with mental illness; (3) the understanding and capacity of the respondent to make and communicate responsible decisions concerning his person; (4) the capacity of the respondent to manage his estate and his financial affairs; (5) the appropriateness of proposed and alternate living arrangements; (6) the impact of the disability upon the respondent’s functioning in the basic activities of daily living and the important decisions faced by the respondent or normally faced by adult members of the respondent’s community; and (7) any other area of inquiry deemed appropriate by the court.
    755 ILCS 5/11a-11
     
     
    Cases
     
    United States vs. Alvarez  132 S. Ct 2537        – lost valor –
    Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union 535 US 564   –  virtual child porn
    Brown v. Entm’t Merchants Ass’n 131 S. Ct 2729    – violent video games
    Synder v. Phelps  131 S. Ct 1207  –   cemetery picketing
    Citizens United v. Fed Election 130 S. Ct 876   –   clear statement that First Amendment rights are a serious matter – and cannot be impaired directly or indirectly.
     
    The First Amendment requires heightened scrutiny whenever the government creates “a regulation of speech because of disagreement with the message it conveys.” Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791, 109 S.Ct. 2746, 105 L.Ed.2d 661 (1989); see also Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U.S. 41, 48, 106 S.Ct. 925, 89 L.Ed.2d 29 (1986) (explaining that “ ‘content-neutral’ speech regulations” are “those that are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech” (internal quotation marks omitted)). A government bent on frustrating an impending demonstration might pass a law demanding two years’ notice before the issuance of parade permits. Even if the hypothetical measure on its face appeared neutral as to content and speaker, its purpose to suppress speech and its unjustified burdens on expression would render it unconstitutional. Ibid. Commercial speech is no exception. See Discovery Network, supra, at 429–430, 113 S.Ct. 1505 (commercial speech restriction lacking a “neutral justification” was not content neutral). A “consumer’s concern for the free flow of commercial speech often may be far keener than his concern for urgent political dialogue.” Bates v. State Bar of Ariz., 433 U.S. 350, 364, 97 S.Ct. 2691, 53 L.Ed.2d 810 (1977). That reality has great relevance in the fields of medicine and public health, where information can save lives.
    Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 131 S. Ct. 2653, 2664, 180 L. Ed. 2d 544 (2011)
     
    Definition of Clear and Convincing Standard.  
     
    Clear and convincing proof is a demanding standard “denot [ing] a degree of belief that lies between the belief that is required to find the truth or existence of the [fact in issue] in an ordinary civil action and the belief that is required to find guilt in a criminal prosecution…. [The burden] is sustained if evidence induces in the mind of the trier a reasonable belief that the facts asserted are highly **516 probably true, that the probability that they are true or exist is substantially greater than the probability that they are false or do not exist.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., at 290-91, 715 A.2d 712.
     
     
 
     
     
    [1]       § 35:30. Hearing to adjudicate a person disabled
    The respondent is entitled to be represented by counsel, to demand a jury of 6 persons, to present evidence, and to confront and cross-examine all witnesses.1 The hearing may be closed to the public on request of the respondent, the guardian ad litem, or appointed or other counsel for the respondent.2 Unless excused by the court upon a showing that the respondent refuses to be present or will suffer harm if required to attend, the respondent shall be present at the hearing.3
    The general rules of evidence are applicable to proceedings to adjudicate a person disabled.4 Nonexpert witnesses may ordinarily give their opinions as to the ability of the respondent to transact ordinary business.5 However, unsubstantiated testimony of a nonexpert witnesses is insufficient to establish disability where the alleged disabled person demonstrates adequate ability to provide for his or her needs, such as by executing a power of attorney for the control of his or her estate.6 The court will determine whether a non expert witness has sufficient knowledge to express an opinion as to mental capacity at a particular time or period.7 Upon oral or written motion by the respondent or the guardian ad litem or on the court’s own motion, the court shall appoint one or more independent experts to examine the respondent.8
    The testimony of the alleged disabled person is competent.9 In a proper case, the disabled person may be examined as an adverse witness.10
    At the hearing, the court must inquire regarding:
    • the nature and extent of respondent’s general intellectual and physical functioning;11
    • the extent of the impairment of his or her adaptive behavior if he or she is a person with a developmental disability, or the nature and severity of his or her mental illness if he or she is a person with mental illness;12
    • respondent’s understanding and capacity to make and communicate responsible decisions concerning his or her person;13
    • respondent’s capacity to manage his or her estate and his or her financial affairs;14
    • the appropriateness of proposed and alternate living arrangements;15
    • the impact of the disability on the respondent’s functioning in the basic activities of daily living and the important decisions faced by the respondent or normally faced by adult members of the respondent’s community;16 and
    • any other area of inquiry deemed appropriate by the court.17
    An authenticated transcript of the evidence, taken in a proceeding concerning the alleged disabled person under the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Code,18 is admissible into evidence at the hearing.19
    In an uncontested proceeding for the appointment of a guardian, the person who prepared the report accompanying the petition20 will only be required to testify at the trial upon court order for cause shown.21
    The establishment of physical disabilities on the part of the alleged disabled person is not sufficient evidence to support a determination of disability.22
    2 Horner Probate Prac. & Estates § 35:30
     
     
    Ken Ditkowsky
    http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/

Atty Ken Ditkowsky fights the ARDC’s mission to sanitize his files

One ongoing theme in probate is the sanitizing of files.  At one point about 70% of the file was missing in the Sykes case.  SO asked me why didn’t I give an accurate page count of how much of the file was missing and I gotta tell you 1) an accurate page count is not the issue when not a single page of the file should ever be missing and that’s federal crime; and 2) how can you give an accurate count of something that’s not there?  You can make an educated guess, which is what we did.

I’m not going to count pages.

So an important part of covering up tracks is to remove something from the file.

See below and what happened to KDD:

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6FbJzwtHocwU2RkamdiZFc3X28/edit?usp=sharing

 

And here is the amazing court order to remove a document from an IARDC file which indicated that the ARDC attorneys have engaged in illegal, wrongful and highly prejudicial behavior:

 

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6FbJzwtHocwU2RkamdiZFc3X28/edit?usp=sharing

It’s brazen and amazing.

More proof that an FBI agent is sorely needed on the 15th floor of the ARDC to field complaints and clean up that agency.

Famous Atty Bailey suspended for 5 years for speaking out against corruption

Every day it seems another good, honest attorney reporting on corruption is having their bar card swiped away by rigged and railroaded proceedings.

Take a look at attorney Bailey whose law license was grabbed in a one page order recently handed down by the PA Supreme Court:

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2013/10/controversial_attorney_don_bai.html

Given the fact that all the normal defenses are being ignored by the disciplinary boards:  first amendment, state constitutional amendments, internet immunity under 47 USC 230 and Elder Abuse laws which provide immunity to those reporting elder abuse, one would think it is time for the feds to step in and start cleaning up the state lawyer disciplinary boards which appear to be biased and corrupt in and of themselves.

We know the 18th floor of the Daley center needs an FBI agent in the hall with a desk for direct reporting on corruption.

Perhaps the 15th floor of One Prudential Plaza needs one too.

 

JoAnne

Illegal and wrongful actions taken against Ken and I by the IARDC.

Everyone knows that a credit report, pursuant to federal laws must have the permission of the creditor in order to pull a credit report. Yes, even government officials.  Imagine Ken’s surprise when the IARDC filed a motion to pull and destroy a certain email where an IARDC investigator was asked to pull the credit reports on “two Illinois attorneys” without their knowledge.

Here is his response:

MOTION TO DISMISS PROCEEDINGS BASED UPON DEMONSTRATED BIAS & VIOLATION OF 735 ILCS 110 & TO RECONSIDER ORDER OF OCTOBER 2, 2013 AS UNETHICAL AND WRONGFUL SPOILATION OF EVIDENCE.
 
 Now comes Kenneth Ditkowsky and states as follows:
1.  The respondent brings this Motion to Dismiss even though he is aware that such motions are not favored.   He is compelled however to bring this motion as the order entered by this panel on October 2, 2013 is so offensive to the Administration of Justice that it taints these proceedings and the entity that promulgates it.
2.  A copy of the order entered on October 2, 2013 is attached hereto and made part hereof as if set forth in detail.
3)   The IARDC claims that the document to be destroyed was inadvertently placed in the official court record.    Such a claim is offensive on its face in that the document was part of another document that was admitted into evidence.    In order for a document to be admitted into evidence the said document has to be offered into evidence by one or more of the attorney who are appearing for a party to the litigation proceeding.    In this instant case Mr. Larkin, the administrator was represented when the document was placed into evidence by two attorneys on the staff of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois. www.lardc.org.
4)  That prior to an exhibit being admitted into evidence the offering attorneys must submit the document to the opposing attorneys.    In this case there was Mr. Hyman and the respondent.
5)  That a document to be admitted must be reviewed by the trier of fact.   In this situation there were three members of the hearing panel.     They have to decide if the document is to be admitted into evidence.    There were two attorneys and one lay person on the panel.
6)  That in the case of Disciplinary Commission there is also a host of clerks, supervising attorneys, the administrator etc. who must review a document before it is entered into evidence either in whole or part.
7)   The suggestion of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois. www.lardc.org. that any part of exhibit 3 was placed inadvertently into the Court record is patently absurd as facts which everyone knows to be facts must be ignored.     Not one of the six attorneys and numerous other people who had the opportunity and the duty to review the document that this panel has ordered to be destroyed voiced any opposition to the admission of the entire exhibit 3 into evidence, or noted anything that would make the document to be inadmissible, irrelevant or otherwise of such a nature that spolitation of evidence could be justified.    In fact, upon reflection it is the memory of the respondent that the document that the IARDC and this panel desired to be destroyed was a recent addition to the official record maintained by the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois. www.lardc.org.[1]   In point of fact the said document is evidence of possible misconduct by the staff of the IARDC.
8)    That the destruction of official records in a pending case is unprecedented however, it is consistent with the general tenor of this case.      As indicated by the Farenga  (smoking gun letter – not produced as part of discovery by the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois as part of discovery even though it refers to the respondent) the gravamen of these proceedings is the respondent’s exercise of his First Amendment Rights pursuant to the United States Constitution[2].    As there has never been a delegation to the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois to regulate, impede or otherwise limit that First Amendment Rights of respondent or any other citizen, it is clear that Mr. Larkin and the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois and its panel and commission simply  lack jurisdiction to impede or hinder the respondents Constitutional Rights..
9)  That 42 USCA 1983 protects citizens from invasions of their Constitutional Rights under color of statute.    735 ILCS 110 is the State of Illinois version of the law protecting Illinois citizens from the use of proceedings such as the instant proceedings from interference with First Amendment Rights.    735 ILCS 110/5 reiterates the policy of the State of Illinois.    It is respectfully suggested that 1) Ms. Farenga’s letter,2)  the failure of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois to call as witnesses the people with actual knowledge of whether or not any or all of the statements allegedly made by the respondent were true or not, i.e. Carolyn Troepe, Gloria Sykes, Yolanda Bakken et al and 3) the order of October 2, 2013 all strongly suggest that these proceedings are being conducted for the purpose of preventing the respondent from speaking out on the now documented violation and implementation of the Established policy of the State of Illinois.   The  County of DiWitt case, states:
“An established public policy exists in Illinois to protect the elderly from abuse or harm. The Nursing Home Care Act (210 ILCS 45/1–101 et seq. (West 1996)) and the Elder Abuse and Neglect Act (320 ILCS 20/1 et seq. (West 1996)) are clear examples of the legislature’s intent to protect the elderly from neglect, abuse, and degrading treatment in nursing homes and domestic situations. Alden Nursing Center—Morrow, Inc. v. Lumpkin, 259 Ill.App.3d 1027, 1033, 198 Ill.Dec. 7, 632 N.E.2d 66, 70 (1994). *638 Further evidence of the public policy of protecting senior citizens can be found in criminal statutes that increase the classification and punishment for those crimes committed against victims over the age of 60. See 720 ILCS 5/12–4.6 (West 1996) (the offense of battery is upgraded to an aggravated battery when defendant knowingly causes bodily harm to an individual of 60 years of age or older).”   Cnty. of De Witt v. Am. Fed’n of State, Cnty., Mun. Employees, Council 31, 298 Ill. App. 3d 634, 637-38, 699 N.E.2d 163, 166 (1998)
10)     Even more compelling is the fact that by statute, the respondent’s actions are protected, to wit:
(a-7) A person making a report under this Act in the belief that it is in the alleged victim’s best interest shall be immune from criminal or civil liability or professional disciplinary action on account of making the report, notwithstanding any requirements concerning the confidentiality of information with respect to such eligible adult which might otherwise be applicable.   320 ILCS 20/4   (emphasis mine)
11)    That it is very clear to respondent that he cannot obtain a fair and impartial hearing before this panel as the criterion of ‘clear and convincing evidence’ not only has been obviated, but,  clairvoyance has been substituted for testimony, and the Rule of Law as set forth in the recent Supreme Court of the United States has been vitiated.     (Respondent’s brief specifies the particular cases and the fact that the First Amendment is the ‘core value’ of America upon which our entire democracy rests.   The importance of every institution of government being zealous in protecting the Constitutional Rights of every citizen and every attorney being a messenger  will be repeated may be offensive to the current administration of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois but it is consistent with the oath that every attorney took when he was sworn in.
12)    That as a citizen of the United States of America, fully intending to full exercise his Rights pursuant to Article 1 of the Illinois Constitution of 1970, and the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution the respondent demands that no document admitted in whole or part as evidence in these proceeds, no document referred to in whole or part in these proceedings, and/or no document garnered directly or indirectly in whole or part be altered or destroyed.   The respondent at this point in time intends to when and if he files a Civil Rights lawsuit to request as part of discovery all of the aforesaid documents and demands that they be preserved in their original form.
Wherefore the respondent prays s follows:
1)  That the order of October 2, 2013 be vacated and the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois be ordered to preserve not only the document that they sought to destroy, but all other documents that have directly or indirectly been encountered in these proceedings.  (and in particular the documents referred to in paragraph 12)
2)  That this panel having demonstrated bias by their attornment to the spoliation of documents in this case recuse itself instanter.
3)  That these proceedings and any and all related be dismissed instanter.
 


[1] It is respectfully suggested that another document that was part of the documents that the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois. www.lardc.org. sought to be admitted and were admitted into evidence does not appear to be in the official record.   That document is a Government Accounting Office report to Congress that was part of the Judge Connors deposition.
 
[2] It should be noted that the Respondent is at all times a private citizen who happens to have a law degree.   The attempt to limit his First Amendment Rights is disingereous and a violation of 42 USCA 1983.    First, the protected attorneys Adam Stern, Cynthia Farenga et al brought proceedings against the respondent to use Rule 137 to prevent him from exercising his First Amendment Rights of association and his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights to practice law and comply with Rule 137 and FRCP 11.    They were thwarted when the Appellate Court of Illinois pointed out that respondent was not before the Circuit Court that sanctioned him, and therefore the Court lacked jurisdiction.    The Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois and the hearing board improperly ignore this fact in their findings.   Nothing has changed and there is not a scintilla of evidence that the respondent is anything other than a citizen who happens to have a law degree who is complaining to law enforcement and others concerning the ‘railroading’ of senior citizens and the failure of the Court to comply with statutory mandates.
 
 
Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

It’s nearly impossible to figure out what and who is involved in Ken’s and my cases.  They are too bizarre to imagine.  Fist in response to the myriad of Ken’s dispositive motions declaring his innocence, sending more and more, even boxes and boxes of information to the IARDC protesting his innocence, they pass a rule saying “no dispolsibive motions”, even though standard court proceedings are to file a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, and then a Judgement on the pleadings or Summary Judgment motion.  This is all standard in all courts of law, EXCEPT the IARDC.

I was told that I was “unlikely” to be able to use the affirmative defenses of First Amendment, Illinois Article X on free speech, 47 USC 230 which declares internet bloggers to have immunity for the statements they publish and then the commonlaw defamation defenses of: opinion, hyperbole, fair reporting, litigation reporting.  Illinois also provides for immunity from prosecution for reporting on elder abuse, but that also seems to be ignored.

Well meaning, well intentioned people passed laws like the Illinois Elder Abuse act to prevent people from being sued when they report abuse.  In this case, it was repeatedly reported to the authorities, and they ignored the please for assistance by the Sykes family, and then this blog was created to report it to the public.

 

The public has a right to know the truth.  Mary Sykes is being exploited and abused.  Her family is abused not only by CT, but by the authorities that stand by and do nothing, and the probate court that can’t simply tell the truth and dismiss the proceedings because there truly is no jurisdiction.

I have learned so much about how to be corrupt, how to fool the system, how to twist the truth while in court and watch the judge look the other way.  But what I want to really learn is how to stop all of this.  how to restore truth, integrity and justice into the Daley Center courtrooms.   That indeed is the challenge.

It’s actually very difficult to figure out what is going on in the case, because the procedure is so bizarre, the options are so limited, and it just appears to be the same railroad developed for Mary Sykes in probate.

 

What gives?  Something is clearly going on here, and I think if we just keep asking questions, the answers will come to us all, and they won’t be very pretty.

Good news on Janet Phelan’s article!

Apparently it was cross posted at dozens of blogs and they organized a protest (somewhere) and it made local news.

Here are the top ten blogs which picked it up right away:

From: Janet Phelan
Sent: Oct 1, 2013 10:58 PM
To: JoAnne M Denison
Cc: Atty Ken Ditkowsky , “janet_c_phelan@yahoo.com”
Subject: First page of hits…..found it on a Russian site, too

I organized a couple of demonstrations in front of courthouses. We made the local network news. Might want to think about that….

Attorney on Trial for Exercising First Amendment Rights – | Intellihub …
intellihub.com/…/attorney-trial-exercising-first-amen… – Traducir esta página
hace 9 horas – JoAnne Denison has made a very big mistake, it appears. Denison, who has been a licensed attorney in the State of Illinois for twenty-seven …
Activist Post: Attorney on Trial for Exercising First Amendment Rights
http://www.activistpost.com/…/attorney-on-trial-for-exercis&#8230; – Traducir esta página
hace 3 horas – Janet C. Phelan Activist Post JoAnne Denison has made a very big mistake, it appears. Denison, who has been a licensed attorney in the State …
Attorney on Trial for Exercising First Amendment Rights | WHAT …
whatreallyhappened.com/…/attorney-trial-exercising-… – Traducir esta página
hace 8 horas – JoAnne Denison has made a very big mistake, it appears. Denison, who has been a licensed attorney in the State of Illinois for twenty-seven …
Attorney on Trial for Exercising First Amendment Rights … – Inagist
inagist.com/all/385116095629099008/ – Traducir esta página
hace 8 horas – Attorney on Trial for Exercising First Amendment Rights – | Intellihub News http://t.co/q6VRc8huOK via @intelligencehub by IntelligenceHub …
Attorney on Trial for Exercising First Amendment Rights | The …
https://www.theinnoplex.com/…/attorney-on-trial-for-exercising-first-amen&#8230;
hace 9 horas – Janet C. Phelan | JoAnne Denison has made a very big mistake, it appears. Denison, who has been a licensed attorney in the State of Illinois …
Attorney on Trial for Exercising First Amendment Rights …
thedailyblogreport.wordpress.com/…/attorney-on-tria… – Traducir esta página
hace 47 minutos – http://whatthegovernmentcantdoforyou.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/1b8fd__pf-print-icon.gif Print PDF Get the Intellihub.com Official …
Uncategorized | thedailyblogreport – thedailyblogreport – WordPress …
thedailyblogreport.wordpress.com/…/uncategorized/ – Traducir esta página
hace 47 minutos – Attorney on Trial for Exercising First Amendment Rights … Read more about: Attorney on Trial for Exercising First Amendment Rights.
Attorney on Trial for Exercising First Amendment Rights | BadBlue
badbluemoney.bitnamiapp.com/p/p.php?sid=322693 – Traducir esta página
Popularity: 150. Clicks: 0, Attorney on Trial for Exercising First Amendment Rights (Your browser does not support BadBlue charts). Visit intellihub.com View …
Wake up or Die: Top News Stories
http://www.salineetv.com/ – Traducir esta página
… Attorney on Trial for Exercising First Amendment Rights · Attorney on Trial for Exercising First Amendment Rights · Netanyahu Sounds Alarm About Iran in UN …
Attorney on Trial for Exercising First Amendment…
newsreportatthedailynews.tumblr.com/…/attorney-on… – Traducir esta página
hace 3 horas – Attorney on Trial for Exercising First Amendment Rights. Print PDF. Get the Intellihub.com Official Newsletter HERE. Henry County Courthouse …

—–Original Message—–
From: Janet Phelan
Sent: Oct 1, 2013 5:33 PM
To: JoAnne M Denison , “kenditkowsky@yahoo.com”
Cc: “janet_c_phelan@yahoo.com”
Subject: Re: Posted!

The article will be up on Activistpost a bit later. That is where it will begin to make some waves. AP is a hub….from there it goes out…..everywhere….Lately, some of my articles have been appearing on Russian websites, Japanese websites….AP rocks!!

The promotions have worked fine and I or my staff will get some time today to thank all of the blogs that picked up the article.  That way, many will keep on posting and pick up for additional cross posts.  Follow up comments and thanks are very important.

Check out Janet Phelan’s new article on the Sykes case, the IARDC, Ken Ditkowsky and myself

Janet did a great job on this article with careful research and documents.  Thanks so much to Janet!

Also, I am in the process of hiring a lawyer for my trial at the IARDC, so if anyone wants to make a donation so that attorneys can speak out freely regarding corruption, Michael Piston, an out of state attorney (thank goodness for that so the IARDC doesn’t come after him for my defense), please either send it directly to myself or him.  I can send you his address and any payment information.

So, while I don’t do fundraisers, this might be a good time to help out.  I have already donated hundreds of thousands of dollars in attorney time to this blog and speaking out.  A mere pittance of that would be extremely grateful.

Pass it along and recommend others to this blog.

 

http://intellihub.com/2013/10/01/attorney-trial-exercising-first-amendment-rights/#comments

Why is a fair trial so important?

Some important law from Ken Ditkowsky

 

A fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process.” People v. Hawkins, 181 Ill.2d 41, 50, 228 Ill.Dec. 924, 690 N.E.2d 999 (1998) (citing Bracy, 520 U.S. 899, 117 S.Ct. 1793). “Fairness at trial requires not only the absence of actual bias but also the absence of the probability of bias.” **971 *1001 Hawkins, 181 Ill.2d at 50, 228 Ill.Dec. 924, 690 N.E.2d 999 (citing In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136, 75 S.Ct. 623, 99 L.Ed. 942 (1955)). “To this end, no person is permitted to judge cases in which he or she has an interest in the outcome.” Hawkins, 181 Ill.2d at 50, 228 Ill.Dec. 924, 690 N.E.2d 999. “ ‘Every procedure which would offer a possible temptation to the average man as a judge to forget the burden of proof required to convict the defendant, or which might lead him not to hold the balance nice, clear and true between the state and the accused denies the latter due process of law.’ ” Hawkins, 181 Ill.2d at 51, 228 Ill.Dec. 924, 690 N.E.2d 999 (quoting Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, 532, 47 S.Ct. 437, 71 L.Ed. 749

People v. Gacho, 2012 IL App (1st) 091675, 967 N.E.2d 994, 1000-01
In Sykes, there was no discovery afforded Gloria, no pretrial motions, and Judge Connors gave about 15 minutes to the family to talk for a bit. I recall during that conversation CT told the court that she would allow Gloria to see Mary freely, if appointed.
This is in stark contrast to the clearly upset Mary at the nursing home who was asked “when can I see my beloved Gloria again” to which CT shouted “NEVER” and marched her off to a private room, pushing her in the back all the way along.
Some how a portion of that tape survives.  But no one cares.  The state said claims of abuse by grabing Mary until she shouted out, and then marching her down the hall away from Gloria whom she desperately wanted to see was somehow not abusive.
But the state cares more about prosecuting myself and Ken for speaking out against all of the elders who have been grossly abused in probate court.  What we say apparently isn’t pretty, the politicans don’t want to clean it up and they want no one to see the mess, but as KDD testified during his hearing, an independent government survey showed guardianship and probate court abuses were widespread across the nation.
LB asked Ken if he was “sorry” for quoting the GAO study INSTEAD of taking her own responsibility for cleaning up the mess.
The GAO was stating the facts.  Ken was repeating the facts.  A blog and a newspaper and journals merely collect and report on the facts. What does sorry have to do with this.  Does the American public want the ARDC to put our news thru a “sorry” filter.
As they used to say in Russia, where there were two papers–one meaning Truth, and the other News, there is no Izvestiya in Pravda and there is no Pravda in Izvestiya.
I think Russia tried that and it failed.
Joanne

Corrupt case of the day

Dear Readers;

I am putting this case out there but I have to redact it for two reasons:  1) the ARDC does not like lawyers talking about corruption and their position is there is none….that is despite the fact I receive tons of emails to the contrary; and 2) apparently the goons and thugs have told me “don’t name names”.  I don’t need any more broken windshields or sugar in my gas.

so read on below.

It has been submitted to askdoj@doj.gov and to the emails for the state’s attorneys.  I don’t know if I’m not supposed to publish those.  In Ken’s trial, LB asked Ken if he was sorry for repeated in an email that was directly out of a GAO report indicating that probate court and guardian abuse were an epidemic after the author investigated.  “Feel sorry?”  Attorneys only present the facts, they are what they are, and then you put them in argument.  Some facts some people like, other facts aren’t liked, depending on what side of the fence you’re on.  We are not judges.  We don’t write opinions based upon how someone “feels.”  And most judges write opinions based upon the law not feelings.

LB must have taken psychology and thinks it applies to the duties of lawyers and judges.

The law is, you have to have jurisdiction, and to do that, you have to have a properly served and noticed summons and complaint, or at least a summons.  The Illinois Probate Act requires much more because the person you’re trying to get jurisdiction over is allegedly incompetent, so assuredly the family–adult parents, siblings and children must be timely notified to so the proper guardian is selected and the court is fully advised of all pertinent family members–who is an abuser, who is not; who can be trusted, who can not be; who the ward likes to be around and who they can’t stand to be around, etc.

All of this is in the law and the caselaw.

So read on for another case of corruption.  I am hoping, for the sake of the poor client, we can get a second trial or re do on the summary judgment motion of liability from all of this.

JoAnne

Dear Ken and Gloria
X had a case fixed ($6 million claim) in X of 2011, after a two week trial.   X was told it was fixed beforehand but during the trial it was a blood bath, the judge X ruled against Plaintiffs objections over and over again, sustained 95% of theirs, and then made a ridiculous ruling–even going to far as to blame the Plaintiff’s brother for the misdeeds of the defendants!

It was fixed by suddenly transferring it from Judge Y who suddenly said “he had no time for a trial” to some case assignment room with a “random judge generator” (which no one ever sees in operation–they went “to the back room”  and suddenly popped up with a judge.

Names involved:  Y for handing off the case and he knew or should have known to a place where they “fix” cases, and that “case transfer room” on the 14th floor was ridiculous too.

All of the players involved in this scheme are below, and I’m turning it over to Eric Holder and State’s attorneys for investigation of all of these players

The X center is filled with dirt and scum at the bar and on the bench.

Disgusting.

joanne

case
200X-L-00XXXX

Activity Date: 6/23/20xx Participant: Z
TRANSFER TO JUDGE WITHIN DIVISION
Judge: X
Microfilm: LD000bbbb
Activity Date: 6/23/20xx Participant: X
CASE SET ON ASSIGNMENT CALL
Date: 7/11/20xx
Court Time: 1000
Judge: X
Microfilm: LD000bbbb
Activity Date: 6/23/20xx Participant: X
ORDER SCANNED
Activity Date: 7/8/20xx Participant: V
CASE CONTINUED ON TRIAL CALL
Date: 7/11/20xx

Again, raising the ugly issue of visitation and how to pretend to do one’s duty as a plenary guardian

Dear Readers;

As you are all aware, it is common to take a targeted senior (meaning targeted by the OPG or a tied in probate attorney) and then isolate them, drain the estate and kill them off.  You now know the procedure over and over again.

A recent news story reports that three young women were held in a basement, restrained for 3 years and the miscreant got the death penalty for that.

Ken quipped if the women were elderly, held in a basement for 3 years against their will, property taken, bank accounts drained, they would call it “probate” and then have the miscreant lecture at approved “probate organization” meetings on how he carefully tended to 3 old women for years before they died and kept them from harming themselves with nosey relatives and the scary streets.  He would have received the guardian’s fee, and a probate court would have approved because several GAL’s and probate attorneys would have gotten the rest of the estate, together with “anti social” workers and case “mis” managers.  But I digress.

Illinois clearly needs to pass a “loss of consortium” law between parent and child and siblings and make the remedies enhanced where the victim is a senior that is being isolated.

CT has absolutely no court order that Gloria, Kathie or Yolanda needs a supervisor.  That has been done before and it didn’t work.  Gloria brings a minister, CT starts it up with abusive behavior and negative comments, that is reported and CT turns it around and blames Gloria and all the miscreant attorneys back it up that Gloria is the problem.  No reason to go there again.  Of course, the clergy denies it and the court ignores it.

One of our good friends and probate victims, RB pointed out, in probate, why is it “visitation” when what is really happening is social time between two consenting adults.  Mary is not a child to be granted “visitation” with momma and pops or nanna and pop pops.  She is a full grown adult, and competent to the extent she knows and loves and misses Gloria.  Video evidence was taken of that and the Naperville police incredulously destroyed it and I have yet to see Sgt. Krakow go report himself for misconduct or Commander Krammerer take any action or issue any apology or reconstruct the file, which has been already published here!  Isn’t that classic obstruction of justice and witness tampering.  Again, complaints are filed and no action taken.

Perhaps we need to start calling the visits with Mary “mother child bonding time”, with Yolanda “sister time”, with Kathie “aunt and niece bonding time”.

Gloria gets no bonding time with her mother and they love one another dearly. I saw that, as well as Scott Evans, the Garden Club of Norwood Park, dozens of citizens saw it on a daily basis and knew of it.  Why do the miscreants hide it when they get to court then?

Read on to what Ken Ditkowsky has to say today:

From: kenneth ditkowsky <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>
To: GLORIA Jean SYKES <gloami@msn.com>; Tim Lahrman NASGA <timlahrman@aol.com>; Eric Holder <askdoj@usdoj.gov>; matt_abbott <matt_abbott@kirk.senate.gov>; Cook County States Attorney <statesattorney@cookcountyil.gov>; Mary_Woolery <Mary_Woolery@isp.state.il.us>; 60m <60m@cbsnews.com>; tips <tips@elderabuseexposed.com>; tips <tips@tribune.com>; SUNTIMES <letters@suntimes.com>; ACLU <ACLU@ACLU.ORG>; illinois.ardc <illinois.ardc@gmail.com>; illinois.ardc <illinois.ardc@gmail.com>; NASGA <NASGA.org@gmail.com>; probate sharks <verenusl@gmail.com>; JoAnne Denison <JoAnne@DenisonLaw.com>; Kathie Bakken <k_bakken@att.net>
Cc: Harry Heckert <vahrh1135@aol.com>; j ditkowsky <jdit@aol.com>; denise <denise@momsv.org>
Sent: Wed, Sep 25, 2013 6:46 pm
Subject: Re: Email from Toerpe to aunt yo

Gloria/Tim/Kathy/Aunt Yo/General Holder/Senator Kirk
Gloria thank you for sending me the e-mail that you received from the plenary guardian for Mary Sykes (Toepe)  It is a waste of time to send a copy to the Mr. Stern or Ms. Farenga as they will complain to the Illinois ARDC that the complaint concerning the continued isolation (Abuse of an elderly person) is unethical and attorneys cannot complain concerning Elder Cleansing acts.   I therefore have reported myself to the IARDC and have sent them a copy of this e-mail which also copies Mr. Holder and various news organizations.  My responsibility as a human being is more important than covering up for persons engaged in elder cleansing!
What is tragic is that Mary Sykes is being held hostage in by her plenary guardian and being kept isolated from her family and in particularly her younger sister Yolanda.   This report of continued elder abuse apparently does not trouble either the two guardian ad litem; however, as this is the 3rd phase of elder cleansing and reasonably calculated to destroy Mary’s will to live and cause her death I am concerned.   I am also concerned that the appointment of Toerpe as guardian was done without compliance with 755 ILCS 5/11a – 10 – which is jurisdictional and the criterion of 11a – 3 was totally ignored.   (The circumstances of the appointment are obscene but that is another issue).
What is important is the fact that this e-mail reveals that 755 ILCs 5/11a – 17 and 18 are also being ignored by the plenary guardian.   The plenary guardian was appointed not to deprive Mary Sykes of her dignity, liberty and property, but only for the purposes stated in 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3(b).   If changes are to be considered the guardian must make application pursuant to 755 ILCS 5/11a – 17 and 18.    This fact seems to have been lost!  However, as it appears that the ‘system’ is designed to provide profit for the anointed “judicial officials”  (word used by Mr. Larkin to refer to our friends the miscreants, to wit: the two guardian ad litem, Ms. T, and her attorney – and those who aid and abet them) it is apparent that the statute is just a ‘technicality’ to be ignored.
This e-mail sent by Ms. T discloses her total disregard for her responsibilities as guardian.   The fact that Mr. Stern and Ms. Farenga have been active in the isolation of Mary Sykes and the fostering of these violations of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3, 17 & 18 is reprehensible and labels them assessories before and during the fact.    The isolation clearly is intended to destroy Mary Sykes’ will to live and thus prematurely end her life!
I’ve copied law enforcement and as a human being I am on bended knee begging for this travesty to end and that the protections of 755 ILCS 5/11a et seq be afforded to innocent Mary Sykes and the other senior citizens who are being abused and exploited by the cottage industry of ‘elder cleansing.’   I understand that my allowing Mary Sykes to visit freely with her sisters and her younger daughter the program of elder cleansing might be delayed and Mary might live a few days more; however – do we still live in the United STates of America?
(we all get old and we become vulnerable – thus we are all subject to ‘elder cleansing.’   If we do not join together and act to free Mary Sykes and all those seniors similarly situated let me assure you that you have in your future CT, AS, and/or CF.  I do not want this for your or me and therefore I selfishly pray that law enforcement will step in a restore the Rule of Law and end this terrorism!)
Ken Ditkowsky
From: GLORIA Jean SYKES <gloami@msn.com>
To: kenditkowsky@yahoo.com; Tim Lahrman NASGA <timlahrman@aol.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 3:20 PM
Subject: Email from Toerpe to aunt yo

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:
From: ybakken@pick911.com
Date: September 25, 2013 2:31:40 PM CDT
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
Subject: Fwd:  Visit

—–Original Message—–
From: Carolyn Toerpe [mailto:carolyn.toerpe@gmail.com?]
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 03:05 PM
To: ybakken@pick911.com
Cc: ‘Peter Schmiedel’, ‘Cynthia Farenga’, ‘Adam Stern’
Subject: Re: Visit

By the legal granting of Guardianship to me, by the State of Illinois.

And by all your past behaviors, in which you and yours, abut Gloria Sykes and her following of those who refuse to accept reality.
Carolyn
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 11:34 AM, <ybakken@pick911.com> wrote:

Under what authority is this a requirement?

—–Original Message—–
From: carolyn.toerpe@gmail.com [mailto:carolyn.toerpe@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 09:03 PM
To: ybakken@pick911.com
Cc: ‘Peter Schmiedel’, ‘Cynthia Farenga’, ‘Adam Stern’
Subject: Visit

As there was no communication as to a suggestion for a professional supervisor, there will be no visit tomorrow. Carolyn Sent from my iPad

Posted with permission of Ken Ditkowsky.  Other emails posted on “newsworthy basis”

 

From Ken Ditkowsky–he re-reads Atty Larkins brief and finds no case support

for regulating non commercial speech, the ability of Illinois attorneys to speak out against corruption, and to further the goals of truth and justice in our society.

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Sep 23, 2013 5:29 PM
To: JoAnne Denison
Cc: “lawrence@Lhyman.com” , Don Johnson
Subject: Fw: WestlawNext – Reichle v. Howards

The ball keep rolling along.   I do not know if I sent you this case before.   It is a clear statement as to the qualified immunity situation.   It also is another confirmation that Mr. Larkin’s actions are clearly ultra-vires and he is aware of the same.
I read Larkin’s brief again. (before the Review Commission) If ever there was an example of disrespect for the Rule of Law the brief meets that criterion.  Each of the ‘older’ Supreme Court cases that Larkin cites makes it very clear that Attorneys do have First Amendment Rights and there is no room for larkin or anyone else to impead content related speech.
The Sawyer case as an example held for the attorney.   It found that there was no impairment by local rule or otherwise to stop her from speaking out.   Not one of the Supreme Court cases cited by Larkin comes close to suggesting that an Administrator has to power or the jurisdiction to stop an attorney from speaking out on any content related or political subject.   There is some indication that an attorney’s advertising has to be reasonable, but, as judges are elected officials they are subject to critical comment as such is required by a free electorate.
This stuff is so basic that it ‘hurts’ that such ignorance of the basic principles of American society are not readily understood and protected.   Something is wrong when lawyers are paid by the State of Illinois and do not exhibit the knowledge that pre-teens are required to exhibit to get into ‘high school’     If Lawyers are ignorant as to the the basic protections afforded all citizens how are they competent to advise the public!   Indeed, why is the IARDC not bringing proceedings against these lawyers who represent themselves to be attorneys and have no idea as to what the First Amendment specifies!
I do not know how the public protects itself from this terrible situation, but it certainly has to do so – I can understand a lawyer having no familiarity with section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, but, a lawyer no knowing that other lawyers have the right to communicate with the Attorney General of the United STates and law enforcement is too much!!
I realize that Mr. Larkin, the IARDC, and the miscreants expect that you and I will shake in our boots because of the disciplinary proceedings that have been wrongfully brought against us; however, if they read the cases that recently were handed down by the United States Supreme Court ****.
What is interesting is the fact that Larkin is so reluctant to join in calling for an HONEST complete and comprehensive investigation of the Sykes case and its related miscreants.   I guess trying to explain the non-action on the citizen complaint letters is too much of a challenge.   Certainly our friends letters that have been furnished during discovery are hard to explain.   Judy has a thing about that letter from CF rationalizing that there could be no gold coins as if they existed Gloria would have been expected by her (CF) to have stolen them!!   Indeed, that suggests to me that such is exactly what happened when CT got into the safety deposit box.    How else could CT have afforded (with her husband unemployed and having been just days before pecuniarily embarrassed) the house remodeling and the lavish wedding for her daughter.
Ken Ditkowsky

http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/

Dear Ken;

It is indeed a sad day when lawyers cannot speak out against corruption and point out cases where jurisdiction is lacking–Sykes, Bedin, Wyman, Marcelle, etc.  And when jurisdiction is pointed out to the ARDC, they do not consider it a “serious matter” enough to launch an honest, complete and thorough investigation into these cases to protect the human and civil rights of the disabled persons involved.  It is indeed very disappointing.

Attys Larkin, SO and MS are silent on this at best, moving to strike valuable evidence from the file at worst.

How did these attorneys get to work for the ARDC and why aren’t they helping out probate victims rather than going after honest and ethical attorneys?  Have they no shame?  Is there nothing too low and evil they can aspire to?

I thought that the ARDC was a bastion of ethics, morals and lofty ideas for the attorneys in the State of Illinois.  It should be a break away from the lack of civilization we see, even in Chicago, with dozens shot and murdered on the South and West sides and the City just says “hire more cops” when the reality is, we do nothing to teach peace and love.  And the true peace and love comes from our own innate ability to see truth, peace, justice and equities done in the world.

Let’s keep on going and keep on reminding people that the most important thing for Chicagoans to do right now is to band together for the loftier goals of peace, love, justice, truth, equity and all the wonderful things we have been given to distribute in the world.

The world doesn’t have to be a scary place for seniors, their homes and property.

You and I can change that, Ken.

JoAnne

How much freedom is there afforded in our new tech savvy world? Facebook is now included!

From the Wall Street Journal today:

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324807704579083391772699608.html#articleTabs%3Darticle

 

an article on how when a person said they “liked” another candidate they were fired by their boss!

The employee alleged that he had a first amendment right to “like” something on Facebook, even if his boss did not.  In this case, the employee was a deputy and his boss was the sheriff.  The employee said he like the opposing candidate and the boss fired him.

Since we all know someone who got fired for expressing political ideas at our work, this is an even more interesting case for you employers out there.

 

I find it fascinating.

JoAnne