Source: https://marygsykes.com/2014/07/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 11:08:15+00:00

Document:
“designed and intended to remove governmental restraints from the arena of public discussion, putting the decision as to what views shall be voiced largely into the hands of each of us, … in the belief that no other approach would comport with the premise of individual dignity and choice upon which our political system rests.” Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 24, 91 S.Ct. 1780, 29 L.Ed.2d 284 (1971). As relevant here, the First Amendment safeguards an individual’s right to participate in the public debate through political expression and political association. See, Buckley, 424 U.S. at 15. McCutcheon v. F.E.C., 12-536, 2014 WL 1301866 (U.S. Apr. 2, 2014) (Emphasis added).
Note that the cases we cite are all SCOTUS or US Sup. Ct. Cases.
What does the ARDC cite in its brief in response?
The ARDC ignores the issues of the First Amendment, and just say the case is all about the disciplinary proceeding (no) so the IARDC should have immunity, a probate case that Ken and I were personally involved in (no) so the GAL’s should have immunity.
were prevented from engaging in the practice of law in the matter of Estate ofMary Sykes, No. 09 P 4585, filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, CountyDepartment, Probate Division. R. 1, at ¶5; R. 39, Exhibit (“Ex.”) E.
I assume that they are hoping the 7th Circuit won’t read the letter because it uses the words “after I appear” for Mary Sykes plainly and clearly. Of course, the ARDC Tribunal ignored those words and claimed that Ken falsely state he did appear in the letter. Remember, if you work for the ARDC, never, never post that letter. Shhhhh. Someone might realize you cover up inconvenient facts and truths to get what you want.
ProbateSharks.com, in which Denison printed writings by Ditkowsky that accused Farenga and Stern of criminal conduct and “gross improprieties” in their role as guardians ad litem for Mary Sykes. Id., at A3-4.
Everyone knows that the Probate Sharks blog is NOT my blog. It belongs to Ken Cooper, pursuant to Whois.net–the official site for ownership of blogs. No matter, the facts do NOT stop the ARDC.
Interestingly enough, on pp. 28-29 of their brief, the ARDC skips the entire jurisdiction requirement–Summons, Service of Petition upon the Respondent 14 days advance notice of time, date and place of hearing, and upon the elderly sisters. They just say “guardianship has to be in the best interests of the ward”. Okay, as determined by whom? The Illinois state government? The 18th floor of the Daley Center? What about our state legislature and US constitution providing due process, a summons and proper complaint to a defendant? Do we now arrest people and drag them into star chambers and off with their heads? Is the ARDC sanctioning jurisdictionless guardianships without notice and without an opportunity to be heard and to object? Circa 1780 we were promised these rights were inalienable and would endure forever, now, in one swoop, the18th floor takes away these rights and the ARDC skips the rights in its responsive brief and says we don’t have a US and Illinois constitution when and if certain court appointed attorneys are involved.
Do you think that the ARDC, in filing this brief, could be less caring about seniors and wards of the State of Illinois, giving purchase to the miscreants of the 18th floor who will determine if and when anyone in Cook County needs a guardianship, without notice, and without due process?
They for sure do not address the human and civil rights violations in doing so, and that violates US treaty law on Elder Abuse and Financial Exploitation, which is not only rampant in the US (see GAO reports published on NASGA website), but also apparently elsewhere in the world. Seems to be an universal problem that miscreants can’t keep their mitts of of a ward’s honey pot.
disciplinary proceedings affecting, members of the Illinois bar. Ill. S. Ct. R. 751(a). Jerome Larkin, as Administrator, is the principal executive officer of the Commission, having been appointed to that position by the Commissioners with the approval of the Illinois Supreme Court. Ill. S. Ct. R. 751(e)(1), 752.
But try and call them and ask why no one at the ARDC files Ethics Reports according to the Illinois Ethics Act of 2009 mandated by government agencies, and Janet Phelan, who has done so will tell you that she was told the ARDC was a “private entity”, not subject to mandates for Illinois agencies. So, on one hand the ARDC wants immunity, so it puts in its briefs it is a government agency that gets 11th Amendment immunity. BUT when you call them on the carpet for not following the mandates of Illinois Ethics laws for manadatory reporting of all attorneys and management, suddenly it is not a government agency.
I want to know why the IARDC isn’t be guardianized itself for clearly having MPD or Multiple Personality Disorder?
resolved in favor of finding that the privilege applies.
Steffes v. Stephan Co., 144 F.3d 1070, 1074 (7th Cir. 1998).
Isn’t it quite odd that the ARDC claims this privilege for itself, but it does not allow Denison or Ditkowsky to assert it, because in fact all Denison did was write this blog and tell the truth, and all Ditkowsky did was attempt to investigate a case upon which he did not appear in.
state government actor, and this Court has held that the ARDC is the legal equivalent of the State. Johnson v. Supreme Court of Illinois, 165 F.3d 1140, 1141 (7th Cir. 1999); see also Bilal v. Wolf, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55579, 55596-97 (N.D. Ill. 2009).
But then why don’t they Ethics Report as mandated by law? And why don’t they publish salaries, as 99% of all other state agencies do to ensure that bribes aren’t being taken?
All good questions for the 7th cir. to figure out.
Next the ARDC on pp. 41 argues against an injunction on the grounds, such conditions are unlikely to happen again. But the Sykes case is going on, and so are other cases that Denison blogs on, and she gets told in court, after one of the attorneys points it out to the judge and makes a request, to stop blogging. Stopping court watchers from blogging and taking notes continues to this day on the 18th floor and every time it happened in the Sykes case, AS, CF and PS all asked or agreed with the court’s decision to prevent blogging by Denison. Atty Ken Ditkowsky continues to write emails, faxes and letters to the authorities about the Sykes case–what about all of that is not over? The US Supreme Ct has made it clear that note taking is a constitutional right in numerous decisions with which Tim Evans and Sheriff Dart do not agree. Denison has asked them repeatedly to instruct their deputies, allow the public laptops and tablets to blog and note take efficiently–all denied. Never responded to–except perhaps by Sheriff Dart refusing to issue Denison an attorney ID! I have FOIA’d the reason for that and they have asked for an extension of time. I faxed in the earlier requests and they were not responded to, so the last one I dropped off in person and asked to deliver it to counsel personally. I suspect that some employees probably didn’t like the FOIA and it would conveniently fall into a circular file, but I digress.
Many probate victims, I have found, after being fleeced of life, liberty and property read and know the Illinois Probate Act, the Elder Abuse Laws, backwards and forwards, in and out. They may be terrorized and beleaguered, but they are NOT stupid.
call for investigations or communicate with each other.
Note that while we are not entitled to an injunction because past conduct will not dictate future harm, the ARDC admits that the complaint is based upon the defendants preventing Ken and I from blogging, sending emails, faxes and other communications to third parties (family members and friends of Mary, the authorities and other probate victims). This blog has not stopped. Our communications have not ceased. The ARDC filed disciplinary proceedings against us to stop our communications to the authorities and others. The repeatedly struck and ignored motions, facts, witnesses and evidence that our communications spoke the truth. We alleged a cover up and the cover up continues unabated and our communications and investigations continue. We are clearly entitled to an injunction.
to eliminate the impermissible risk of discriminatory enforcement, Kolender v.
when either the speaker or the message is critical of those who enforce the law.
Thus, Gentile makes it abundantly clear that being critical of judicial officials is an act protected by the First Amendment. Larkin thus grossly exceeds his authority, as even the Supreme Court of Illinois lacks the authority to limit an attorney’s 18 USCA § 4 duty, his right to petition his government and or complain of corruption. Without delegation of authority, Larkin’s conduct is ultra vires and no matter how viewed he enjoys no immunity to deny a fellow citizen of his/her civil liberties and the right to speak out.
compared Ms. Denison’s Blog to “shouting fire in a crowded theatre”– in an absurd attempt to bring it under the guise of “strict scrutiny”. Plaintiff Denison’s response to those assertions have been 1) don’t shoot the messenger; 2) the blog is not subversive dissent to be crushed by US authorities; 3) don’t blame the media for its content and 4) when offended, simply avert thy eyes.
case; and it merely postpones the attorneys’ comments until after the trial.
materially prejudicing that proceeding. Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 U.S.
houses, selects and assists all Tribunal members at all times. Further, in contravention to the Illinois Ethics Reporting Act of 2009, no ARDC attorney or management files any Ethics report, as mandated by Illinois law. All of this embarrassing and crucial information is published at all times on Pltf Denison’s blog.
So, read the briefs and decide for yourselves who you want to be the official attorney censors–Jerome Larkin, who has “funny” property records, or Adam Stern, who has a $60k unexplained tax lien, Cynthia Farenga who has a husband with 100 property transactions, or Judge Stuart, and her changed testimony and altered transcript the ARDC refuses to provide the audio to, applying the whitewash brush again by saying “file an affidavit” and we’ll consider the affidavit.
Remember, it is the official position of the ARDC to insult the public’s intelligence. My tribunal insulted Kathie Bakken an older disabled woman with a walker by saying sour grapes you don’t understand, and Yolanda Bakken, an 85 year old plus woman who is frail and has mobility issues, again, family member, sour grapes to you–also insulting their intelligence.
The ARDC position is they will decide the facts, they will protect an attorney code of silence, they want to shut down this blog and the US govt will tell you what to think and do. 1985 was a banner year for them. They read the book and believed it and thought it was good–for them.
Certain Judges will live in infamy. Their corruption is infamous. Some went to jail in the Operation Greylord scenario, and others got away with it. Illinois has a sorry history which continues to this day. In Chicago legendary corruption is the ‘name of the game!’ The distinction between Chicago corruption of yesterday and that of today is the fact that if you kept your nose clean the ‘bad guys’ were respectful of you and took a wide berth.
What I note is that they understood that if you run into an individual who will not play, his/her integrity should be respected as sometime in the future you are going to have access to so as to be able to seek a safe harbor. Thus, while I received many very attractive and lucrative offers, I accepted none. Some of the offers were tainted and some were very straight. I wanted no part of any transaction that was not 100% Kosher or had some aspect that could be deemed not Kosher. I recognized that if you played in the mud you were bound to get dirty. I was not afraid to get dirty – I just wanted to be able to look myself in the mirror and say “ I like that person!” As an example I was offered a membership preference in a club that would have increased the cash flow of my law practice by a substantial factor. I had previously made application and was told that I was number 500 on the list of potential membership candidates. A member of the political elite invited me to the club and informed me that certain people felt it was not a good career move for me to be part of a particular law case and if I was to withdraw as the attorney for the plaintiff I would find my membership application approved immediately. I rejected the offer – I did not become a member of the club and I continued to have a law practice that was like every other practice – feast and famine.
In my half decade at the bar, offers flowed regularly and I rejected each one that I felt to be tainted. By pure luck I avoided trouble. By staying out of the mud I found that when a member of the political elite of that time needed to consult as to a problem (including many that did not involve the law) I was always available (pro bono) to lend an ear. Much of the time I was a depository of many secrets that could embarrass many of the elite. I’ve kept every one of the secrets and have no intention of disclosing a single one even though all the principals are long gone. I have systematically forgotten everything including who told what to me, and most importantly the subject matter.
Until the Mary Sykes case I was protected. Yes there were attempts to bully me, but, magically the prospective bully recognized that having a friend who he/she could confide in and be assured that his/her secrets would be safe was much better than have an enemy who not only saw life in stark black and white, but, who felt that ******. Sometimes it took a while for a potential enemy to realize that he/she held the key to peace. Treating me with respect and my client appropriately made my short memory forget all about the perfidy that had occurred. Thus, it was amusing to Sam Moy to sit me at a table populated by members of the political elite who had previously announced that they considered me an enemy and who he knew I lacked total respect. (He also placed a couple of neutrals at the table) He loved to watch the interaction between 180 degree opposites. It always amused me when a “sworn enemy” would appear at my home or office and ask me to speak in private. He/she would then ask me for my advice as to intimate personal matters, business transactions, or pending legal problems. I knew why I was the confident! I also knew that the information that was imparted to me was done is strict confidence and my availability, candor and honesty were the secret to my well being. An honest enemy will not sugar coat a problem you are facing!
Today the world has changed. The political elite do not understand that if you develop a cadre of ‘yes men’ around you, when you need advice and candor you do not get it. As an example, had **** come to me after the theft of Mary/Gloria Sykes’ gold coins was made public, I would have listened to all the excuses, all the rationalizations, and all the theories on how they could and would get away with it and then advised **** to: 1) report the theft to the court. I would have and did suggest that the report specify that I (KKD) had informed him of it, and 2) get away from ***** as they were just bad people.
(I gratuitously made suggestion 1 in a safe harbor letter – I felt that if ***** would do his job Judge Connors would in a fit of self-preservation also do her job and CYA. I was wrong. Instead he went screaming to Jerome Larkin in agony! He needed protection as it appears that *****. Larkin was happy to aid and abet the criminal conspiracy to deny a senior citizen of her liberty and her hard earned assets).
The Evidence deposition of Judge Connors provides her a permanent place in history. Few judges would proudly demonstrate that she administered a statute for a decade without reading it. The two cases explaining how jurisdiction was obtained were obviously never read by the Judge. The standard for determining if a citizen should be deprived of civil rights and liberty interests was ignored by the judge. The core value = i.e. level playing field was set to rest by her words that the same result would be reached ****.
This is not the situation involving the Chief Judge of the Chancery Division (David Shields) who got caught taking a 200 dollar bribe to fix a case, or Judge Holtzer who demanded the lawyers who came before him purchase life insurance from his wife. Indeed it is not Judge Stuart *****. It is not Judge B. Fain Tucker who at the end of the day was so drunk she had to be carried from the bench. It is the nightmare of every lawyer – it is and was venal corruption.
The ‘score’ of judges who went to jail in the Operation Greylord affair and the several score of judges who had to resign or face jail were minor miscreants compared to the Judges who were so corrupt as to allow the cottage industry of elder cleansing to prosper in their courtrooms. Yes, Mr. Larkin, I believe that not one of the judges received a white envelope full of cash. As has been indicated bribing a public official can be done in many ways. I‘ve explained how it is done in other e-mails. Any remuneration received by a judicial official not paid by a government treasury check that deducts FICA is highly suspect. It is most probably a bribe and the public official receiving it should be investigated. As an example a discount received by a public official or a judicial official on a parcel of real estate is a bribe!!! It is an Illegal remuneration no matter how it is structured.
 As Mr. Larkin has attempted to violate my First Amendment Rights, this communication is another serious Himmel complaint against Attorney Jerome Larkin. Even though such a request is futile due to the Corruption in the State of Illinois Courts demand is made for an HONEST complete and comprehensive investigation of the Cottage industry of Elder Cleansing and the use of public funds by Jerome Larkin to aid and abet elder cleansing and the War on the elderly and disabled.
And while Mr. Larkin is at an thorough and honest investigations of attorneys, he needs to look closely at Sykes, Wyman, Gore, LL, Drabik, Tyler, Spera, etc. and others and start an appropriate investigation–all of these cases were denied, by the ARDC, competent and thorough investigations and the attorneys were not brought into scrutiny for these actions.
While Larkin is gearing up to boot me out or suspend me for speaking out and telling everyone truthfully these stories and that the behavior is wrong, immoral, unconscionable and not worthy of an attorney, this charity, JUSTICE 4 EVERY 1 is gearing up to get deeper into the Cook County probate files and publish more and do more about the corruption.
How is it that summary eviction orders get handed out like candy to a 72 year old Husband in a wheel chair by a certain Judge X just based upon the say so of Guardian’s counsel? And how is that Guardian can harass and remove locks from the domicile of Husband and nothing is done, except when counsel appears on the case?
The standard of Probate court is the best interests of the ward, and when the ward’s Husband is being terrorized by the Guardian and his attorney with impunity, there are in fact serious problems in the courtroom.
It is time for volunteer trained guardians to get involved in these cases. Surveys in probate court have to be taken to spot problems, there has to be oversight on Citations to Recover assets and eviction orders, until these procedures come into compliance with laws. We also have to make sure that when other family members are legally evicted–an actual summons and complaint, that they do not lose their home without appropriate legal assistance.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 § 4
 v.