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 ARDC investigators to pull credit reports on "two Illinois" attorneys, etc.--which is illegal) and we're starting to pull pubic records (unlike the ARDC 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 ARDC 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 ARDC 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 ARDC 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 that signs all of my pleadings I have googled for that 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 ARDC 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 ARDC 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 ARDC 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 ARDC 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 ARDC, they would publish salaries, they would publish they are in compliance with Shakman and show how that is, they would publish.
The ARDC annual report for 2012 is published on their website. It does not talk about ethics/financial disclosures (some employees at the ARDC 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 monoply--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 ARDC today to publish those reports online for each employee for each year they worked at the ARDC. 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
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for commenting.
Your comment will be held for approval by the blog owner.