What does the ARDC want me and Ken to be sorry for?
by jmdenison
Dear Readers;
One of the things that the ARDC always says when you get a complaint, is to be sorry for what you did wrong and and be contrite. Okay, I get that. I have learned (and this is a good lesson for all) pray to not make mistakes but when you do apologize and rectify any problems or troubles right away and put those as top priority. Never put them off, they only get worse.
So, in this case, it's really hard. I really don't want to cause any trouble for the nice atty ladies at the ARDC--Jessica Haspel and Sharon Opryszek and Jerome Larkin, but the reality is, their agency was set up to prevent another Greylord back in 1978--they were supposed to root out and eliminate corruption in the court system.
Now, it turns out they "don't do" judges, like a cleaning lady "doesn't do" windows, they "don't do" stuff that happens in court--the judge should rectify those problems and while there is a "Himmel" obligation imposed by the US Supreme Court on attorneys to report corruption and other attorneys engaging it, is their official policy "don't blog about it" or "don't warn others" about miscreants either. My survey says 98% of you believe that blogging about corruption is not only important, but I have the right to warn the public.
And while I have a blog to be open, transparent and figure out what the heck is going on, the ARDC doesn't. It publishes generic and conclusionary "rules" taken from a hodge podge of commonlaw.
For example, they accused me of "making false statements or statements with reckless disregard for the truth." Now in 1978 the ARDC/SCOI did not suddenly invent that standard, it turns out to be the standard for defamation law taken from a US Supreme Court case. It further turns out that the "malice" or "reckless disregard" is a very high level, so high, that defamation suits are rarely filed or won by attorneys because they run smack dab into the First Amendment--which is to be given the broadest interpretation possible without totally killing off a suit for defamation.
My blog is transparent. I publish the horror stories and then back them up with the transcripts, the documents, the declarations, the statements of the parties at the same time I publish what needs to be said.
KDD is right to tell the authorities what is going on. I only do the blog. I have written to the Dept. of Justice on behalf of my clients with their information and I have advised them to contact the Dept. of Justice, the US attorney's offices, the Illinois State's Attys and even the local police. I always thought that was the right thing to do. And as a taxpayer I would expect that these agencies would take the complaints and police reports seriously and conduct a full, honest and complete investigation, but it appears even in cases where millions are uninventoried, there is no account analysis, no one at the police, FBI, etc. seems to care. I guess the Dunkin Donuts coffee and donuts are too good.
Can we blame Dunkin Donuts?
In any case, read on for my email today to the atty ladies at the ARDC:
Dear Sharon and Jessica;
I note in some of your correspondence that you were going to order the transcript from the disqualification of KDD to represent me.
Did you get that transcript and can you please send me copy?
Also, do you have a copy of the transcript from from KDD's 2 day hearing in early Sept 2012. I'd love to have that one too, but I can't afford it.
Also, I know the ARDC like to hear it when attorneys are repetant for what they have done, and I'll tell you this. I am sorry I have to fight with you over all this. I think it's a waste of taxpayer and lawyer fee monies. But I do believe that lawyers have a first amendment right to blog, and blog in particular about corruption in the court system.
Many attorneys have looked the other way at this and said that "a bit of corruption here and there is okay and you should just live with it." But I know Mary, Gloria, Fred and Caroly and the entire family, and I tell you, Mary is in a miserable place, the case was horrific, Gloria is now homeless and penniless and her father and mother NEVER intended that. I knew Mary Sykes quite well and she was always a kind and funny and interesting person.
So I blog. I'm sorry about that, but someone has to tell the truth. and this is not just a case of he said/she said--it is a case clearly lacking in jurisdiction with substantial assets uninventoried. I know the family, I know the relatives and family friends.
I don't understand how in the US all of this can happen. It's utterly shameful.
So I hate to cause trouble for you ladies, but I see no way out. Attys have a Himmel duty to report, and I think they also have a duty to contact the authorities when there is elder abuse. While we don't have mandatory reporting (what would the ARDC do THEN?), I think the best course of action is to report it. And if no action is taken, report it again and again until justice is done.
Sorry about that. I hate to be your messenger of bad news. I truly am sorry for that. But you would not BELIEVE all the horror stories I get on a daily basis.
I think the ARDC also needs an ethics blog if you are in fact trying to censor blogs. What is it exactly that you don't want attorneys to say? Can you actually phrase any amount of censorship for attorney blogs -- esp. those regarding corruption --- that would not engender a public outcry from those who have suffered injustices in Illinois court rooms. I'm just asking?
Should I be sorry to even have to be the one to ask these questions? I don't think so.
take care and see if you can get me those transcripts.
take care and see if you can get me those transcripts.
thanks
joanne
| Comment | See all comments |
Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.
Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://marygsykes.com/2013/03/ |
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for commenting.
Your comment will be held for approval by the blog owner.