No Joanne, I am not kidding --- nor am I wimping out of my part of the fight for I am but a ward ---
To the contrary I am offering perspective for discussion --- beginning with the Norman Conquest circa 1066 A.D. --- where the written history of 'wardship' in the feudal days of Old England originates. Question Joanne, what do you know about the legend of Robin Hood ?? Did you by chance know that the legend of Robin Hood was in fact the story of a ward's revenge for the wrongs he suffered under a wardship ?? What do you know about Charles Dickens ?? Did you know that Charles Dickens was a ward of the Superintendent of the king's debtor prison. As a young boy his parents were imprisoned for their debts and so the Super. took wardship of Charles and indentured him to work for his keep ? Did you know that Charles Dickens grew up to work as a clerk in the court and a journalist/reporter and that his works are largely inspired by his experiences as a ward and those of his parents who were freed from debtors prison because it was expected that they were about to inherit an estate and could then pay their debts --- yet after years in a probate fight to get the inheritance they never did inherit what was owed them..... Of course you know that when the white Anglo-Saxon landed on this continent and began to settle in --- ultimately they placed all the American Indians under a national wardship (think about the old movies and TV westerns --- the Indian was always a 'crazy injun' --- in contrast consider the theme of Dances With Wolves .... as our country was settled, that which we could not understand we simply slaughter and oppressed ... chased them down hunted them down and confined them to the reservation --- which in part looked like a segregated nursing home of the present.... I am being cynical of course.)
The problems with wardship and with 'probate' dates back to these times Joanne --- it is an old old problem that has simply never really changed. So let's go back to feudal times .... and I garner this perspective in part from a 1962 Marquette Law Review article and a 1965 Ill App. Ct. case which point out .....
In feudal days and following the Norman Conquest --- 'society' as it was then had a two-court system --- the king had his court and the church had theirs (the ecclesiastic courts)
The jurisdiction and legal interests of the king was limited to control of his castle on 'the hill' and all land of the sovereign. The only way a man (never a woman) could acquire land was by either service to the king or inheritance from some man who once served the king. The king had no interest whatsoever in a man's belongings, in his marriage, in the children of a marriage nor in death of any person. All the king had jurisdiction over was his castle on 'the hill', the land of the sovereign and the taxes for the king's land in the possession of others. All land was held in wardship of the king.
The church courts had jurisdiction over marriage, divorce albeit a very rare event, care of the orphans and widows, and probate of a will and death estate. In these times it was a sin to die without a will and the fees of the ecclesiastic court for the probate of a will were presumed to be intended by the decedent to 'pay for masses' [my words .. the final tithing]
so I ask --- do we know and understand our history ??? Is the above structure of courts what the founding fathers envisioned when they wrote the 'establishment clause' ---- to forever keep the king out of the business of the churches ??? Which means to forever keep the king from having jurisdiction over anything but his castle on 'the hill' , the land of the sovereign and the taxes on the king's land in the possession of others..... Think about it folks ---- where do we see all this BS going on in the legal profession today --- which is empowered centrally in the king, actually two kings now days (one state one federal) -- huhhhh, imagine that, family law proceedings and probate proceedings. In sum, today, the king is performing what was historically the functions of the church courts. How did the king get this jurisdiction ?? Before I answer the foregoing question, know this --- throughout the history of old England from the feudal days neither the king nor the ecclesiastic courts had jurisdiction to appoint a guardian for an adult. The ONLY jurisdiction for appointing a guardian was vested in the ecclesiastic courts to appoint a guardian for a minor child who had an interest in a decedent's estate as an heir under a will in probate. Death has always been the jurisdictional fact and requisite condition precedent for invoking the probate jurisdiction of the ecclesiastic courts. Now, back to how the king got into the business of family law and probate .....
First of all the king in chancery was known to assume that on rare occasions a minor child could be provided for by the king (parens patriae) for example, Charles Dickens -- the king imprisoned his parents, he was not an orphan that the church court had jurisdiction, and so the king, out of the goodness of his heart, gave wardship of Charles to the superintendent of the debtors prison --- Still however in these days the king had no interest whatsoever or jurisdiction to provide for the incompetent adult. The church courts had no interest or jurisdiction because the unfortunate incompetent very likely never has any estate or a will. -----
Now, as I understand it from my research the kings court in Chancery was always open to those who were aggrieved by the events and processes of the ecclesiastic courts --- by contrast those aggrieved by the kings court had no remedy in the ecclesiastic courts. Accordingly the king had a steady flow of complaints about the ecclesiastic courts simply because the church courts were themselves at times corrupt and corruptible. As I believe I once read in the 1400's the king set up the "Star Chamber' just for the cases of corruption that came to the kings court from the ecclesiastic courts ... the king had no problem meting out swift and summary justice to the evil-doers and untouchables over in the ecclesiastic courts --- and the king always had an eye out for abolishing the ecclesiastic courts all together because, quite frankly, they were a pain in his ass .... and clogged up the kings courts .... (looks kind of familiar to the clog in todays courts too)
The struggle to abolish the ecclesiastic courts waged on and over time the king's court in Chancery was increasingly taking jurisdiction of matters brought to it from the ecclesiastic courts --- for example, the ecclesiastic court would admit a will to probate, appoint the estate representative --- and if an interested party 'filed a bill' requesting Chancery to administer the estate, Chancery could and would take the case from the ecclesiastic court. (a change of venue) [This practice is still done to this date -- probate appoints a guardian and/or death estate representative --- and any interested party can then ask the Chancery Court to assume jurisdiction over the 'administration'.]
In 1832 the Parliament of England abolished its 'Court of Delegates' (which I understand was a special court for appeals to the king from ecclesiastic courts -- evolved out of the Star Chamber) and the powers of the former Court of Delegates was transferred to the king's Judicial Committee -- In 1857 [and this is significant I think] the king's 'Judicial Committee' created the English 'Court of Probate' and 'Divorce Court' ---- thus stripping the ecclesiastic courts of its jurisdiction over probate and matrimonial matters. 1857 .... is this important to us ?? I think so .... Remember, it was not until 1857 that the king had original and exclusive jurisdiction over a man's belongings, his marriage/divorce, children of a marriage etc. etc. But in 1857 the king assumed his authority and jurisdiction over all of his 'subjects' and his 'subject's property .... from birth to death.
1857 America --- if I am not mistaken ... Lincoln never really opposed slavery ... it was a known and recognized practice to 'indenture' people, the slave however was not a people --- the slave was a thing, a belonging, property which, at common law the king had no interest in nor jurisdiction over. So how does the king in America get jurisdiction over that which at common law was beyond his authority ---- In 1862 Lincoln entered into a treaty with England to abolish slavery, a prior court case in England had abolished slavery and in keeping with our common law principles derived from English common law our country had to change policies on slavery --- never mind there had already been an anti-slavery movement in the states, just not the southern states. War broke out in S. Carolina and Kentucky over this anti-slavery treaty and in 1862 Lincoln issued Executive Order 1 which recognized the War Department for quashing the rebellion in Kentucky. In 1863 Lincoln issued the 'Emancipation Proclamation' --- and again war broke out because --- slavery was bad? or was it because the king just took jurisdiction over a man's property ? It was absolutely imperative that Lincoln win the war because the Emancipation Proclamation was being challenged as an unconstitutional taking of property and it was imperative to Lincoln that the 13th Amendment be passed --- in order to render the war moot ... all of which took place in 1865. On February 1, 1865 Lincoln approved and signed the Join Resolution of the Congress regarding the 13th amendment and submitted it to the States for ratification -- on April 9, 1865 Lee surrendered at Appomattox, and on April 15, 1965 Lincoln is assassinated --- the law of the land is now --- the sovereign (the king) has jurisdiction over what is/was a man's belongings. (don't get me wrong ... I do not espouse owning another person as property ... but the 13th amendment did not abolish slavery ... it only abolished 'involuntary servitude' ... which means that voluntary servitude is still quite welcome and acceptable) Interesting enough ... along comes the 14th Amendment. Never mind how beautiful it is and what it says ---- what did the 14th Amendment do ?? Okay, it conferred upon the states the first ten Amendments, it gave a legally recognizable 'personage' to the freed slave, and at the very same time it made all of us 'citizens' of a country to which we were never before citizens, and we now come under a jurisdiction to which we never before, as free-thinking liberty-loving people, fell under.... Bear with me here please because as you are about to see -- in the minds of some --- Lincoln did not free the slaves, but rather he made us all slaves and here is how. The 13th amendment abolishes 'involuntary servitude' .... which only means the 'slave' has to be paid for his/her services, and because Article I of the Constitution gives to the United States Congress the power to regulate commerce -- whether 'slave' or 'freeman' being paid for your services makes all of us an instrument of commerce for which Congress has the jurisdiction to regulate. We are 'wage slaves' ... might be free men and women ... but we are 'wage slaves' .... The system is set up in such a way that we have no choice but to be wholly dependent on a wage and without some means of commerce survival as a free man or woman is all but impossible. You know, case law says it is the duty of the guardian to keep his ward employed .... funny, Congress regulates our 'minimum wage' ... and in recent years 'job creation' has been, in part, at the forefront of our country's agenda ... You do realize that there is no constitutional right to vote (read Bush v. Gore) .... and what is your right to vote except the right to nominate your representative who will climb atop 'the hill' and represent your best interests as her or she sees fit .... kinda looking like a guardianship here Joanne ... you work, whether voluntarily or involuntarily out of necessity, your 'representative' takes his cut for his role of sitting atop 'the hill' representing your interests to the king in his castle... and you are told to get back to work .... leave the policy making to the 'representatives' that you nominated with your vote. So I ask, some people say if you don't vote --- you don't have a voice and have no right to complain ---- but is not voting really giving up your voice ... to a representative who will climb atop 'the hill' and in the kings castle represent your interests ?? .... I had to laugh several years ago when I heard King George Bush say in a press conference --- "It's time we let the American people keep more of their money", and so I have to ask --- where did King George ever get jurisdiction over my money (my stuff) in the first place ..... oh, that's right ---- the 13th and 14th Amendments which creates in me a 'citizenship' in a nation that I have, perhaps unknowingly, voluntarily consented to.
I say, we are all wards --- we might be free men and women --- but our system of government views us all, and treats us all, as its 'subjects' under its control only allowing for us to control, in our own right, that which the king wants us to control .... otherwise, just like every other ward --- the king, the supreme guardian, will decide for us just what is in our best interest ...... Of course the king does not want us to know we are his ward, lest we then try and enforce the fiduciary duties owed to us --- and God knows the US Government has learned from the American Indian just what happens when and if the ward ever garners the insight and finally figures it out .... In sum, not all of us can own and operate our own casino, with the kings blessing and sanction of course.
In close, does Chicago still refer to its political districts as 'wards' ?? Is not the 'Superintendent of our prisons referred to as 'the warden' ? Why at the hospital is it called the 'maternity ward' ? Why do attorneys have 'clients' and why s the attorney-client relationship fiduciary in nature ?? Before I disclose the answer to this last question let me tell you how and why I went looking for the answer ---- a few years back a friend of mine, who has since died, was running for office as a County Commissioner -- he was a former county sheriff and his soap box was the 'prisoner for profit' agenda. Elkhart County was under a consent judgment with the DOJ to cure the overcrowding in our county jail -- at the time of the consent judgment our jail was built to house 370 prisoners and the County was in the process of building a 100 million dollar 3,700 person capacity jail (expandable to 9,000) --- there was an article in the local paper about the county's probation program and 'community corrections' contract being given to another entity in the dead of the night and without any bidding process. Community Corrections administers the county's probation program and as it turned out when the new entity began to set-up its operation .... low and behold there were more names on the probation roster than bodies in the probation program ... of course names on the roster equates to federal funding from the DOJ and bodies in the program equates to higher administrative expense ... you do the math and conclude as you wish .... but things really looked like a pile of fraud taking place... Anyhow while blogging on the news article I asked the question ---- why does the article speak of 'criminal defendants' ..... and then half way through the article the 'criminal defendant' was suddenly on longer referred to as being a criminal defendant but rather was referred to as a 'client' of community corrections ?? Of course my point was that the word 'client' had some overtones of a commercial interest ... and as it turns out I was dead wrong ----- kind of anyhow. The word 'client', defined in Black's Law Dictionary 2nd ed., derived in origin from the word 'cliens' ... Roman Cannon Law and the word 'cliens', according to Black's 2nd ed. --- denotes a guardianship.... hence the reason the attorney client relationship is fiduciary in nature and character (the client is wholly dependent on the attorney for the task the client submitted to the attorney) and the reason the 'criminal defendant' was a client of community corrections --- he/she is/was a ward of the probation program.
It is simply inescapable ---- the law of wardship is deeply rooted in our history. We have never really known true freedom and we never will truly realize true freedom so long as there is a king on 'the hill'. Think about it --- the king (the sovereign) still to this day holds all land in wardship ... don't pay your property taxes and just look at who comes and takes the land back ... the king does, afterall it has always been his land ... he was just simply kind enough to let you use it and call it yours so long as you pay him the taxes.
As for Robin Hood ---- he served the king in 'knight-service' and for his service he was entitled to land which --- once Robin Hood completed his knight-service and went to claim his land ... he found his land lay in waste, pilfered of all its resources and value by the Sheriff of Nottingham ... and the rest is as we say ---- what legends are made of.
Tim Lahrman, guardianship paralegal and advisor and ward of the state of Indiana.
Note, this is how learned and educated a ward is. I defy the ARDC and the State of Indiana to come up with a single reason why this man is under a guardianship.
For a great book on some stories of the Workhouses and Poor houses of England, (5 stars on Amazon) read, "Call the Midwife" also available as DVD's or a series on PBS, but the video version has not gotten to the story of Mrs. Jenkins, a woman who was so desperate to save her starving children after she had been widowed (circa 1930-40 in London), she rang the bell of the Workhouse. She describes in detail how she was separated from her 4 children upon arrival and never saw them again. The book explains how women were separated from husbands and how chlidren were taken away immediately, never to be seen again, because without the care and comfort of a mother, they died. Her 4 children died of grief and inhumane conditions. Read the story of "Mrs. Jenkins". She was "allowed" to leave the Workhouse after 20 years with a sewing machine to make a living, after she had "saved enough" and "proved herself". Work days every day, 12 hours, at pennies per hour. No break. No visitors. Fresh air one hour per day in a gravel courtyard. She never survived the workhouse or the death of 4 children there intact. True story. The book also has story after story of the true heroes (actually heroines) of the London docks in the 1940's to 50's talking about women who gave birth to child after child, raising them, feeding them with endless hours of housework. Highly recommended.
-----Original Message-----
From: JoAnne M Denison <
jdenison@surfree.com>
To: kenneth ditkowsky <
kenditkowsky@yahoo.com> Janet Phelan <
janet_c_phelan@yahoo.com> timlahrman <
timlahrman@aol.com> llessura <
llessura@gmail.com> tinker"Janet Phelan at Tinker Belle" <
tinker.belle2000@yahoo.com>
Cc: djmatson06 <
djmatson06@yahoo.com> NASGA.org <
NASGA.org@gmail.com> verenusl <
verenusl@gmail.com> JoAnne <
JoAnne@DenisonLaw.com> vahrh1135 <
vahrh1135@aol.com> jdit <
jdit@aol.com> gloami <
gloami@msn.com> jimdit <
jimdit@earthlink.net> LarryChambers <
LarryChambers@comcast.net> matt_abbott <
matt_abbott@kirk.senate.gov> ginny.johnsoncheeserings <
ginny.johnsoncheeserings@gmail.com>
Sent: Tue, May 20, 2014 1:13 am
Subject: Re: the 13th and 14th amendment do NOT make us all wards--are you kidding?
13 th amendment:
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation
14th amendment
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the
male inhabitants of such state,
being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.
Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
************************
Section 1 contains beautiful words. What's with this doubting? We have to stop doubting. The Illinois Probate Act and other state laws are beautiful. The US constitution is beautiful. The Illinois state constitution on its face is beautiful.
it does not make us slaves. stop that nonsense. stop your doubting and stand strong against these miscreants, reprobates and scallywags.
they want you to doubt and question yourself.
but when you were born, everything you need to know about love, caring, kindness, truth and justice was already imprinted upon your hearts. stick with that. then interpret the words of the laws of the land.
do you know how lucky we are to even have gotten those words? it is amazing.
democracy is NOT a spectator sport. get involved. write letters. pummel the IARDC, the federal district judges--anyone that is in a position of power to LISTEN to your grievances and instruction. fax, write, email, call. whatever works for you. the media is NOT important.
I know there are probate victims out there that have been brow beat, have PTLD that cannot do this. but please stop the doubting and the worrying, and carry your torch, your truth and light up the world.
the 13th and 14th amendments are amazing on their face. do not twist the words to the dark side. do not doubt yourselves.
we all have our part. do your part and do not doubt by thinking what I do is not enough, what the dark side says is true (it is most certainly not) and I can't do anything as one person.
We ARE a collective consciousness. Do your part.
joanne
PS okay to publish this and cross post
-----Original Message-----
From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: May 19, 2014 9:28 PM
To: Janet Phelan , "
timlahrman@aol.com" , "
llessura@gmail.com"
Cc: "
djmatson06@yahoo.com" , "
NASGA.org@gmail.com" , "
verenusl@gmail.com" , "
JoAnne@DenisonLaw.com" , "
vahrh1135@aol.com" , "
jdit@aol.com" , "
gloami@msn.com" , "
jimdit@earthlink.net" , "
LarryChambers@comcast.net" , "
matt_abbott@kirk.senate.gov" , "
ginny.johnsoncheeserings@gmail.com"
Subject: Re: 2nd letters from Disciplinary Counsel - NOW WHAT DO I DO?
let's see if we can set up it! It certainly will call attention to the fact that we are losing the war promulgated by the miscreant judicial officials [and those in government who attorn] against the elderly and the disabled.
Ken Ditkowsky
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for commenting.
Your comment will be held for approval by the blog owner.