What a world!

Editor's note: This Shark views the Sykes, Gore, Tyler and Cefelu cases as prime examples of the collusion between the Probate Court of Cook County, judges, lawyers, care workers, nursing homes, bankers and insurance companies to deprive the helpless of their lives and treasures.  These cases clearly defined within the documents created by the miscreants themselves.  Why aren't the perpetrators punished?  Lucius Verenus, Schoolmaster, ProbateSharks.com


The cover-up of the Elder Cleansing scandal has grabbed my attention and marvels me.     It is absolutely amazing that public officials have the temerity to act with criminal intent and actually get away with it.  Every day it puzzles me that here in America so many senior citizens and disabled people are literally kidnapped, and robbed of their dignity and few are even concerned.    Indeed, when a rapist is loose in a neighborhood everyone starts locking doors and windows, walking in pairs, and a hue and cry is raised.     However, when an elderly and/or disabled person is seized, packaged into one of the hell hole nursing homes to lie in his/her own urine pursuant to an ultra vires court order not even a mouse stirs!     The media goes mute, law enforcement goes blind, and the public goes deaf.     Worse yet people who will be targeted as future victims walk with vigor and determination right into the makeshift gas chambers of the American holocaust.

 

Watching the debate last night reminded me of just how far we have allowed ourselves to be diverted from the core values of America.     One of the guiding principles of America is the concept of ‘fair play’ and ‘honesty.’      The candidates for public office were protesting the obvious attempts by some people referred to a moderators trying to divert them into chaos and fighting amongst themselves for fun and profit.    Questions of the type – do you still beat your wife – were beyond the intellectual capacity of the moderators, but they have gotten out of style in the 21^st Century.     The disclosure mechanism of a debate was absent as the moderators reduced the serious business to a sporting event.   Who won became more important than who, if anyone, is best suited to be the President of the United States.

 

The seriousness of exposing the character, intelligence, ability, and personality of the person who become the next President of the United States was (and is) on the back burner.     Billions of dollars are going to be wasted (and are wasted) in the packaging of a product that will exemplify the skill of PR people rather than the competence of the candidate.       This perversion is designed with great skill.    Unfortunately, it undermines America’s core values and leads to a general disregard of our humanity and our freedom.   It also trickles down as ‘elder cleansing,’ ‘racial cleansing’ and ‘ethnic cleansing.’

 

The Lanre Amu case of the Illinois Lawyer Disciplinary Commission (IARDC) is an example of racial and ethnic cleansing of the Jim Crow variety.     Amu, a citizen who immigrated to America from modern Africa, who possesses a darkest hue to his skin literally echoed a complaint made by the respected publication Crain’s Chicago Business when he encountered a law case in which the Judge was on the Board of the defendant, and the Judge’s brother was the attorney for the defendant[1].    Amu made a fatal error – he complained to the IARDC.     Before he could turn his head he was labelled a liar and was suspended from the practice of law by the Illinois Supreme Court.       Ms. Diane Nash (an Icon of the Civil Rights movement and a leader in the Selma march) sought to observe the kangaroo hearing that the IARDC was conducting against JoAnne Denison[2].    She was barred from the hearing room.    In Spite of there being empty seats the IARDC told her (Ms. Nash) there were none and barred her from the hearing room.

 

How did the Illinois Lawyer Disciplinary Commission get away with this outrage?     The political class has determined that they are ‘special’ and entitled to evade the laws that the rest of us are required to observe.    The Wall Street Journal noted how a presidential candidate tried to evade disclosure laws and got caught.     Here in Illinois public employees have to provide an ethics statement disclosing their financial information.     A search of the ethics filings reveals that the Illinois Lawyers Disciplinary Commission administrator (Jerome Larkin) and a number of other public employees on the staff of the IARDC just ignore the law.      Thus, the editorial from the Wall street Journal is applicable locally to demonstrate just how the elite public employees hold us = the ordinary citizens – in contempt and disrespect us, to wit:

Clinton’s Accidental Transparency

Let down by her overconfidence that the homebrew server would remain secret.

ENLARGE

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton before the House Select Committee on Benghazi, Oct. 22. PHOTO: ZUMA PRESS

By 

L. GORDON CROVITZ

Oct. 25, 2015 4:46 p.m. ET

529 COMMENTS

No wonder Hillary Clinton feels aggrieved by her congressional grilling on Benghazi. She had the hard luck to be secretary of state in the Internet era, when digital secrets escape despite the best efforts to keep them hidden. Unintended transparency is better than none.

In an earlier era, the American public would never have learned Mrs. Clinton knew during the attack that it was a planned operation by terrorists and not a spontaneous protest as the administration insisted.

Mrs. Clinton kept her more than 60,000 emails off the State Department’s server. They came to light only because the House Select Committee on Benghazi discovered her secret email system. Those emails—not Mrs. Clinton—were the star witness at last week’s hearing, disclosing with precision who knew what when.

Publicly, Mrs. Clinton issued a statement at 10:32 p.m. Sept. 11, 2012, the evening of the attack, blaming the YouTube video. But the committee disclosed that at 11:12 p.m., she told her daughter, Chelsea, by email: “Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an Al Qaeda-like group.” At 11:49 p.m., according to a State Department email, she told the president of Libya: “There is a gun battle ongoing, which I understand Ansar [al] Sharia”—the local al Qaeda affiliate—“is claiming responsibility for.”

The day after the attack, Mrs. Clinton gave two public comments again blaming the video. The White House press secretary declared: “We have no information to suggest that it was a planned attack.”

But the same day, Mrs. Clinton told the Egyptian prime minister by phone: “We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack—not a protest.” In other words, we’re not so naïve as to believe what we’re telling American voters to further the re-election claim that we’ve put “al Qaeda on the run.”

Two weeks later, the administration was still blaming the video.[3] “There is no video that justifies an attack on an embassy,” President Obama told the United Nations General AssemblySept. 25. “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” On Sept. 27federal agents arrested the Egyptian-born Coptic Christian who made the video, supposedly for violating his parole. (Earlier this year, Islamic State terrorists beheaded 21 Egyptian Coptic Christians on a Libyan beach.)

Rep. Jim Jordan (R., Ohio) summed up his view of the administration’s and Mrs. Clinton’s motives: “You can live with a protest about a video. That won’t hurt you. But a terrorist attack will. So you can’t be square with the American people. You tell your family it’s a terrorist attack, but not the American people. You can tell the president of Libya it’s a terrorist attack, but not the American people. And you can tell the Egyptian prime minister it’s a terrorist attack, but you can’t tell your own people the truth.”

The email saga is not over. The facts are coming out only now because it took almost a year for Mrs. Clinton to produce a fraction of the emails from her homebrew server. The FBI is reportedly investigating whether the setup constituted criminal “gross negligence” in handling classified information. Cybersecurity experts say her unprotected emails were almost certainly hacked by the Chinese and Russians. If so, foreign intelligence agencies possess emails the State Department has withheld from Congress, as well as those Mrs. Clinton withheld from the State Department.

This kind of unplanned disclosure through technology rarely happened in the pre-digital era. One exception was the incriminating 18½-minute gap in Richard Nixon’s Oval Office tapes. In recent years, WikiLeaks and routine email hacks by foreign intelligence agents have taught government officials that their communications aren’t secure.

Mrs. Clinton no doubt genuinely regrets her decision to use a private server. Her assumption that her emails were confidential gave her the confidence to be honest in her private communications—and to assume that conflicts between her public and private comments would never be exposed. Government officials are usually more cautious, aware that their communications on required government servers are subject to the public-disclosure laws Mrs. Clinton almost evaded.

As technology allows more information to be recorded, it raises expectations for greater transparency and more disclosure. The Obama administration came to office promising to be the “most transparent” ever, but instead ignores information requests and stonewalls journalists. Thanks to her private emails, Mrs. Clinton managed to shed some light on the truth, though that was the opposite of what she intended.

                                                        

 

The JoAnne Denison IARDC case is an obscene example of the disregard for America’s core values some of our public servants possess.    Any attempt by a citizen (including a lawyer) to shine a light on the questionable activities of the political elite is quashed by the principle – do not bother me with the facts, I’ve made up my mind  -- and it is clear and present danger to the public if I am exposed for the miscreant that I am!      

 

Of real concern is that they seem to get away with their assaults on America, America’s people and America’s institutions!

---

[1] Crain’s Chicago Business revealed the improper relationship of the very same judge with the very same client.    In the Amu case the Judge did not deny the averment.   However, knowing of the exposure by the press, Jerome Larkin denied without a scintilla of disclosed evidence that Amu’s charge was false.    It seems to be a matter of routine that IARDC panels do not need testimony, witnesses, affidavits, or even vague averments by living persons to meet the standard of proof required to disbar or suspend an attorney.    They announce that their standard is clear and convincing, but in actuality Larkin’s clairvoyance is more than sufficient for the IARDC panels and the Illinois Supreme Court.   

[2] Ms. Denison was a danger to the public according to a Larkin 18 USCA 242 co-conspirator.    She asked for an Honest hearing and complied with Rule 8.3 and 18 USCA 4.    Worse yet she joined with yours truly in her demands.

[3] This is the same approach that the Illinois Attorney Disciplinary Commission (IARDC) uses.     It knows the truth, but, it creates scenarios that it knows is not true to ‘cover up’ for miscreant attorneys and judges actively engaged in elder cleansing i.e. isolation, abuse, exploitation, theft of senior assets, deprivation of Constitutional Rights and ultimately the involuntary assisted suicide of the victim of elder cleansing.        Without a scintilla of evidence or a single witness testifying a panel of the IARDC found that Mary Sykes’ two sisters knew all about a hearing as to Mary’s competency even though they received no notice of any hearing, and in fact no hearing was every held.  Thus, the panel held that they had waived their right to be at the non-existent hearing.    (Mary, according to a letter from the Sheriff of Cook County, was never served with summons as required by statute!)

 

Ken Ditkowsky