Monday, October 31, 2016

Steve Miller: Why are Jared E. Shafer's Judge Signs Being Removed?

Steve Miller: Why are Jared E. Shafer's Judge Signs Being Removed?
LAS VEGAS - On a recent drive through the Las Vegas valley, I noticed that hundreds of Jared E. Shafer's Signs of Nevada c/o PFSN, Inc. judge signs have just been removed from vacant lots two weeks ahead of the election.

I have long believed that Shafer's judge signs were his Achilles' heel, and his secret method of allegedly bribing local judges to issue rulings in his favor, rulings that removed the civil rights of his wealthy court appointed "wards," and reportedly allowed him to gain power of attorney over their finances and assets.

At a time when outdoor advertising companies are flooding our valley with political billboards, Shafer's judge signs are disappearing. Why? Is he going out of business and leaving town in the middle of a state and federal investigation into his and his protege's financial dealings?

April Parks, one of Shafer's proteges, skipped town last summer with the fortunes of several of her Clark County Family Court appointed wards. Patience Bristol, Shafer's PFSN assistant, is currently serving a 5 - 8 year prison sentence for elder exploitation.

Clark County District Attorney Steve Wolfson and Nevada Attorney General Adam Laxalt have told several of Shafer and Parks' victims, and me, that "indictments are expected by November 1."

Is Jared Shafer also planning on leaving town in the near future, hence the dismantling of his sign business in the middle of an election?

Today, I sent inquiries to owners of vacant lots that were previously used by Shafer to advertise the Clark County Family Court and District Court judges he favors, and am awaiting their response. I ask property owners if they have recently become aware of Shafer and his judge's alleged exploitation of wealthy court appointed elderly and disabled "wards," and if they demanded he immediately remove his signs from their vacant land so they would not be inadvertently aiding and abetting him and his judge's alleged crimes?

I will let you know what I learn. ~SM

Saturday, October 29, 2016

Lawyer cuffed, jailed for estate thefts

Lawyer cuffed, jailed for estate thefts

Waukesha — A Milwaukee corporate lawyer who regulators say had multiple conflicts of interest while representing a former client's estate was sentenced Wednesday to 30 days in jail as a condition to 18 months of probation.
Thad Jelinske, 56, of Wauwatosa was led away in handcuffs after Circuit Judge Michael Aprahamian rejected the prosecutor's recommendation of a $3,000 fine as part of a plea bargain in the case.
"You're the attorney. You're supposed to be trusting and honest in everything you do," the judge said. "When you break that trust, the whole system suffers."
Jelinske was charged in September with three misdemeanor counts of theft in a business setting. He pleaded no contest to each charge Wednesday before sentencing.
District Attorney Sue Opper said the case was unusual in that it came to her office after years of litigation in probate court, and without any police investigation. She said the three misdemeanors were the most efficient charges her office could file without extensive further review of the voluminous record.
Opper said she felt $1,000 fine on each count was fair and appropriate given the collateral consequences to Jelinske — the loss of his position, money paid back to the estate by him and his firm, the likely loss of his law license and the serious damage to his reputation.
Jelinske apologized in court but offered no explanation for his conduct other than bad judgment.
His attorney, Michael Fitzgerald, said Jelinske did do some positive things for the estate but was in over his head.
But Aprahamian, a former litigator at Foley & Lardner, read from the probate judge's order that found Jelinske and his firm engaged in bad faith and deliberate misrepresentation to a "shocking" level.
The judge said if an employee for Sears or Kwik Trip had embezzled like Jelinske they'd likely go to jail, and it would send the wrong message if lawyers avoided such punishment just because they might also lose their license for the behavior.
Aprahamian also denied Jelinske's request to surrender to jail at a later date. "Sometimes it's important to stand up and be taken into custody," he said, and Jelinske was handcuffed and led off in his gray suit.
Shortly after he was charged criminally, Jelinske was also hit with an ethics complaint from the Office of Lawyer Regulation that lays out in far greater detail what the complaint calls his major mishandling of an estate left by a former client. It seeks an 18-month suspension of his law license.
Jelinske, a partner at a Milwaukee business law firm Mawicke & Goisman, had little if any experience in probate matters when he became the personal representative to the estate of Robert S. McCloud, who died in 2011. Park Bank, the estate's main creditor, became a party to the probate of the estate after the bank's lawyer felt Jelinske was not forthcoming about the estate's assets.
The bank's lawsuit was later combined with the probate matter and a trial was held in 2014. Circuit Judge Michael Bohren, who presided, rejected Jelinske's contention that he and the law firm made honest mistakes in billing the estate thousands of dollars and claiming a "success fee" of $42,000 for selling McCloud's residence.
More than $100,000 in fees have been returned to the estate, and no outstanding restitution was ordered as part of the sentence in the criminal case.
Bohren also ordered Jelinske to pay Park Bank's costs and fees, which it claims amount to $250,000. That amount has been negotiated to a confidential settlement, lawyers said Wednesday.
The criminal complaint charged that Jelinske cashed a $573.61 insurance check intended for the estate and kept the money without recording a receipt and wrote himself a check for $834.65 from an estate-related account, both in 2011. A third count charged that in 2012 Jelinske deposited a $1,565.52 payment on a life insurance policy for his former client directly into Jelinske's own account and failed to include the payment in a 2013 inventory of the estate filed with a Waukesha County court.
The OLR complaint says he also spent estate funds on suits, Allen Edmonds shoes and to pay off his wife's American Express card bill, and lied during a probate court trial in 2014 and submitted false sworn court records.

Friday, October 28, 2016

Supreme Court chief justice tackles guardianship amid complaints

Supreme Court chief justice tackles guardianship amid complaints


Editor's note: This Shark complained about the unrelated Esformes-Faskowitz cabal fraudulently looting the estate of Irving Faskowitz, an aged Florida resident.  Guess what? Nothing was done to punish the crooks.  Lucius Verenus, Schoolmaster, ProbateSharks.com  
by John Pacenti
The complaints emanate from all over the state and, really, the nation: Seniors and others found incapacitated by the courts too often are treated like piggy banks by professional guardians who put their fees above the needs of the ward or concerns of loved ones.

Florida Chief Justice Jorge Labarga on Monday announced members of a task force that will focus on the growing concern about guardianships in Florida’s courts.

The announcement comes as the state tries to establish for the first time a regulatory authority over professional guardians.

He said few decisions are more challenging to a judge than removing a person’s rights because they are no longer capable of making decisions independently.

The Palm Beach Post, Labarga’s hometown newspaper, has reported extensively on guardianship, particularly how one judge and his wife benefited from it in the series, Guardianships: A Broken Trust. The stories resulted in reforms in Palm Beach County courts. Circuit Judge Martin Colin announced his retirement after the stories.
Lidya Abramovici is the former legislative liaison for Americans Against Abusive Probate Guardianship and says the group has lobbied Labarga for months to get involved as complaints mount from families who see their loved ones and their life savings ransacked by unethical professional guardians.

“The time has come for the Florida Supreme Court to become aware of what is happening in Florida with the injustice to the elderly and the financial abuse,” she said.


Cases to increase
In a news release, Labarga, who lives in Welllington, said he created what he calls the “work group” because guardianship caseloads are increasing in number and complexity.

“As Florida grows and ages, we can expect more and more cases dealing with guardianship issues to come into our courts,” Labarga said.

Individuals found incapacitated by the court are appointed a guardian. If a family member is not available, often a professional guardian steps in with complete control of the senior’s finances, medical decisions and housing.

In Florida and across the nation, many professional guardians have been found to act in their own interests and not those of the incapacitated ward. Families of seniors have found themselves unable to battle professional guardians, who often employ legions of attorneys who are paid out of the savings of the senior.

Balance needed
Highlands County Circuit Judge Olin Shinholser will serve as chairman. He said there is too often conflict between the needs and desires of the ward — often a senior battling dementia — and the guardian, caregivers and even the family.

“Comments and complaints from various stakeholders are indicative that we need to take a closer look at whether the rules and procedures in place accomplish the balance needed,” he said.

State legislators passed laws in the last two legislative sessions to increase the state’s regulation and oversight of guardians.

“This is an appropriate time to re-evaluate our system and determine if the courts are doing everything possible to meet the needs of everyone involved,” Labarga said. “It’s imperative we stay proactive in this area and provide real solutions to emerging issues.”

The work group will tackle a number of guardianship issues, including restoration of capacity for the senior or person put in a guardianship. Costs — which usually mean fees for the guardian and at least one lawyer — will also be addressed.

An interim report is due to the court by October 2017 and a final report is due to the court by September 2018.

“Further evaluating guardianship practices supports the branch’s goal of ensuring that court procedures and operations are easily understandable and user-friendly and supports our mission to protect rights and liberties of all,” Shinholser said.



Supreme Court chief justice tackles guardianship amid complaints

See Also:
Read the myPalmBeachPost articles from the beginning

Thursday, October 27, 2016

Hillary Clinton’s Destructive (Grossly Hypocritical) Death Tax Plan

Hillary Clinton’s Destructive (Grossly Hypocritical) Death Tax Plan

  • Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton speaks at a campaign event in Cleveland. PHOTO: CAROLYN KASTER/ASSOCIATED PRESS
    Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton speaks at a campaign event in Cleveland. PHOTO: CAROLYN KASTER/ASSOCIATED PRESS
    As part of her collection of class-warfare tax proposals, Hillary Clinton wants a big, destructive increase in the death tax.
    This is very bad tax policy. In a good system, there shouldn’t be any double taxation of income that is saved and invested,especially since that approach means a smaller capital stock (i.e., less machinery, technology, equipment, tools, etc). And every single economic school of thought – even Marxism and socialism – agrees that this means lower productivity for workers andtherefore lower wages.
    In a must-read column for the Wall Street Journal, Steven Entin of the Tax Foundation elaborates on why the death tax is pointlessly destructive. He starts by explaining that the tax is unfair.
    …estate taxes are always double taxation. Estates are built with savings that have already been taxed as income, or soon will be. …The superrich can afford to give away assets during their lives or hire estate planners to help minimize the tax. …The main victims of the death tax are middle-income savers and small-business owners who die before transferring ownership to their children.
    And because the tax reduces investment and wages, the revenue gained from imposing the tax is largely offset by lower income tax and payroll tax receipts.
    The estate tax…produces so little revenue, only $19 billion last year. But because the tax has recoil effects, even this revenue is illusory. Because the tax reduces the stock of capital, it lowers the productivity of labor and reduces wages and employment. Much of the burden of the tax is shifted to working people. Research suggests that the estate tax depresses wages and employment enough to actually lowertotal federal revenue over time.
    He then reports on some of the Tax Foundation’s analysis of the good things that happen if the tax is repealed.
    …to eliminate the estate tax…would raise GDP by 0.7% over 10 years and create 142,000 full-time equivalent jobs. After-tax incomes for the bottom four-fifths of Americans would rise by 0.6% to 0.7%, mainly due to wage growth. …Revenue losses in the first six years would be almost entirely offset by gains later in the decade, with more gains thereafter. Both the public and the government would be net winners.
    But he also warns of the bad things that will happen if Hillary’s class-warfare scheme is enacted.
    Mrs. Clinton plans to lower the exempt amount to $3.5 million for estates and $1 million for gifts. She would raise the top rate to 45% for assets over $3.5 million, with further increases up to 65% for individual estates above $500 million. …Mrs. Clinton’s plan would lower GDP by 1% over 10 years and cost 194,000 full-time equivalent jobs. After-tax incomes for the bottom four-fifths of Americans would fall by 0.9% to 1%, due to slower wage growth. …the public and the government would be net losers.
    So what’s the bottom line?
    The revenue numbers cited here also do not take into account increased efforts to avoid the tax. If these imaginative and highly productive people plan ahead to direct their assets to causes they deem worthy, rather than cede their wealth by default to the government, Washington will not see a dime from an estate-tax increase. …Mrs. Clinton’s plan would not so much redistribute wealth as destroy it. Everyone would lose except estate lawyers and life insurers.
    Over the years, I’ve shared other research on the death tax, including a recent column on Hillary’s grave-robber plan, as well as my own modest efforts to impact the overall debate in print and on TV.
    But my favorite bit of research on the death tax comes from Australia, where repeal of the tax created a natural experiment and scholars found that death rates were affected as successful people lived longer so they could protect family money from the tax collector.
    Now there’s research from another natural experiment.
    An economist from the University of Chicago produced a study examining a policy change in Greece to determine what happens when taxes are reduced on the transfer of assets. Here’s a bit about her methodology.
    I exploit a 2002 tax reform in Greece that reduced succession tax rates for transfers of limited liability companies to family members from 20% to less than 2.4%. …In the quasi-experimental setting made possible by the tax policy change, I employ two different methodologies to measure the effect of this policy change on investment. …by comparing the two groups before and after the tax reform, the analysis disentangles the effect of the identity of the new owner (family or unrelated) from the effect of the succession tax.
    And here are her results. As you can see, there’s a notable negative impact on investment.
    …estimates reveal a negative effect of transfer taxes on post-succession investment for firms that are transferred within the family. In the presence of higher succession taxes, investment drops from 17.6% of property, plant, and equipment (PPE) the three years before succession to 9.7% of PPE the two years after. This impact of succession taxes on investment is economically large: the implied fall in the investment ratio (0.079) is approximately 40% of the pre-transition level of investment. For those firms, successions are also associated with a depletion of cash reserves, a decline in profitability, and slow sales growth. Note that to the extent that entrepreneurs can plan ahead for the succession and the related tax liability, the estimates I report in the paper provide an underestimate of the true effect of succession taxes.
    Even academics who seem to support the death tax for ideological reasons admit that it undermines economic performance, as seen in this study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research.
    …aggregate capital and income go up as the estate tax is lowered. When the labor income tax is used to balance the government budget constraints, for given prices, reducing estate taxation does not reduce the rate of return to savings for anyone in the population and still increases the return to leaving a bequest… As a result, aggregate capital goes up a bit more…and so does aggregate output.
    By the way, the economists who produced this study constrained their analysis by assuming other taxes would have to be increased to compensate for any reduction in the death tax. To my knowledge, there’s not a single lawmaker who wants to raise other taxes while reducing or eliminating the tax. As such, the results in the above study almost certainly understate the economic benefits of reform.
    If you don’t like reading academic studies and dealing with equations and jargon, here’s what you really need to know.
    • Rich people aren’t idiots, or at least the tax advisors they have aren’t idiots.
    • Those upper-income taxpayers have tremendous ability to manage their finance.
    • Rich people (and their smart advisors) figure out how to protect themselves from tax.
    • The death tax is a voluntary tax it can be avoided by people with substantial assets.
    • But the various means of avoidance all tend to result in a less dynamic economy.
    In other words, when politicians shoot at rich taxpayers, the rich taxpayers manage to dodge much of the incoming fire, but ordinary people like you and me suffer collateral damage.
    Let’s close by shifting from economics to morality.
    The death tax is odious in part because it is a pure (in a bad sense) form of double taxation, but it also is bad because the government shouldn’t be imposing double taxation simply because someone dies.
    Actually, let’s add one more wrinkle to the discussion. If it’s immoral to impose tax simply because of a death, then it’s doubly immoral to impose such taxes while simultaneously (and hypocritically) taking steps to dodge the tax.
    Hillary and Bill Clinton have done everything in their power to evade the death tax and wouldn't be subjected to her new death tax plan.
    Hillary and Bill Clinton have done everything in their power to evade the death tax and wouldn’t be subjected to her new death tax plan.
    Which is a good description of Hillary’s behavior, as reported by the Washington Examiner.
    Bill and Hillary, like most millionaires whose wealth is mostly in housing and liquid assets, have engaged in sophisticated estate planning to avoid the death tax. …the Clintons placed their Chappaqua home — the one that housed the secret servers Hillary used to evade transparency laws — into two separate trusts. For complex reasons, this protects Chelsea from having to pay the estate tax when she inherits the house. …The Clintons also hold five life insurance policies, worth somewhere around $2 million. This is “designed to transfer assets outside of the estate,” one estate planner told Time. Life insurance payouts are generally exempt from death taxes.
    Oh, and you probably won’t be surprised to learn that Hillary has close ties to the special interest cronyists who profit from the death tax.
    The death tax brings in a paltry sum for Uncle Sam, but it provides a windfall for a couple of tiny segments of the economy: estate planners, and well-funded investors who buy out the family businesses threatened by the death tax. Jeff Ricchetti is a longtime Clinton confidant, a revolving-door corporate lobbyist on K Street, and a donor to all of Hillary Clinton’s campaigns. …Jeff has spent two decades lobbying to preserve and expand the death tax. In 1999, When Jeff cashed out of the Clinton administration, he joined the Podesta Group, co-founded by Clinton’s current campaign manager John Podesta. One client there: the American Council of Life Insurers, where Ricchetti lobbied in favor of taxing inheritances. …Life insurers, such as the members of ACLI and AALU, sell estate-planning products that could become worthless — or at least worth less — if parents were simply able to hand the fruits of their life’s work to their children. That’s why in April, TheTrustAdvisor.com ran a piece headlined “Estate Tax Repeal: Has Hillary Become the Estate Planner’s Best Friend?”
    I’m shocked, shocked.
    By the way, one of the main practitioners of cronyism is Hillary’s political ally, Warren Buffett.
    Buffett advocates the death tax because it has been so very good to him over the years. To fully understand the depth of Buffett’s cynicism and self-interest, let’s take a look at how one might avoid paying the death tax. If you’re a wealthy person and want to steer clear of this tax, you have three options: Set up complicated trust arrangements, which mostly serve to enrich lawyers and merely delay and shift a tax that must eventually be paid; arrange for your estate to make tax-deductible contributions to charitable organizations; or plow your wealth into life insurance before you die. By law, when your heirs are paid the life-insurance disbursement, it’s tax-free. It doesn’t take a genius to see how certain industries could make a tidy profit off these death-tax escape hatches. In fact, some of the most ardent opponents of permanent death-tax repeal are (surprise, surprise) estate lawyers (who set up the trusts), charities (who fear their spigots of money turning off), and the life-insurance lobby (which does all it can to preserve its tax loopholes). Buffett has major investments in companies that sell life insurance. The death tax has helped make him rich while it has made other families poor. What’s sad and ironic is that it takes families with the resources of the Buffetts (and the Hiltons and the Kardashians) to set up the trusts and life-insurance schemes that are necessary to avoid paying the death tax.
    Once again, I’m shocked, shocked.
    P.S. Our death tax is even more punitive that the ones imposed by left-wing hell-holes such as Greece and Venezuela.

    Wednesday, October 26, 2016

    Probate office cleared in jury probe

    Probate office cleared in jury probe

    Editor's note: This Shark would like a "jury probe" of the Probate Court of Cook County crooks.  Lucius Verenus, Schoolmaster, ProbateSharks.com
    The Elmore County Probate Office was recently cleared by the grand jury of conduct alleged in a report on the office issued by the state’s Examiner of Public Accounts.

    The report, originally filed on June 10, 2016, asserts three “charges” with respect to the office. The first is against the office manager at the Millbrook satellite office in the amount of $523.99. The charge asserts: “On April 23, 2013, cash and checks totaling $10,317.59 were collected at the Millbrook Satellite Office, but were not deposited. The failure to deposit the moneys collected was not discovered until June 2013. Subsequently, replacement checks from taxpayers and a surety company totaling $9,793.60 were received and deposited. The remaining $523.99 was not deposited into the official bank account.”

    The second charge asserts that during the period of examination by the Examiner (Oct 1, 2010 to September 30, 2015) numerous clerical errors were made by probate office staff which resulted in failure to collect title fees in an amount sufficient to cover title fees which were drafted by the Alabama Department of Revenue resulted in a shortage in the bank account of $705.

    The third charge asserts a similar allegation to charge two and claims the account was short $875 after ADOR withdrawal of funds.

    In its report to Circuit Judge John Bush, the grand jury stated:

    “The grand jury has specifically reviewed the ‘Report on the Office of Judge of Probate, Elmore County, Alabama, October 1, 2010 through September 30, 2015.’ We note particularly the three charges made by the Examiner of Public Accounts on pages 74-75. One of the charges is in the amount of $523.99 and is against Christina Womble, the Office Manager of the Millbrook Tag Office, and is based on a missing bank deposit for which she was not responsible. The other two charges are for $705.00 and $875.00 against Probate Judge Jimmy Stubbs and Probate Judge John E. Enslen respectively, for clerical errors made by tag department clerks covering a period of five years. We find that none of these allegations involve criminal activity on the part of any of the three persons specified. There are no indictable offenses involved in these matters. We further find that none of the three persons acted negligently or unreasonably under the circumstances. It is our recommendation that no further action be taken.”

    Full Article & Source:
    Probate office cleared in jury probe

    Tuesday, October 25, 2016

    Redstone Ends Trust Battle After Meeting With Granddaughter

    Redstone Ends Trust Battle After Meeting With Granddaughter

    • Billionaire resolved issues with granddaugter Keryn Redstone
    • Accord is final chapter in legal fight begun by ex-Viacom CEO
    Media mogul Sumner Redstone resolved his court fight with granddaughter Keryn after a “difficult and emotional” meeting between the two, his lawyer told a Massachusetts judge on Friday.
    The resolution ends all outstanding disputes over Redstone’s trust in state probate court in Canton. In August, Keryn Redstone, the daughter of Sumner’s son Brent, agreed not to oppose the decision of the 93-year-old man she calls "Grumpy" to resolve related lawsuits over the removal of Viacom Inc. Chief Executive Officer Philippe Dauman.
    Redstone’s mental health was at the center of a months-long battle over control of his $40 billion media empire anchored by Viacom. The fight, which pitted the billionaire against his old friends, eventually led to Dauman’s ouster. His granddaughter had joined Dauman in urging the court to require him to undergo a mental examination.
    “These prolific papers and lawyering were not just about the number of digits
    to the left of the decimal point in my view,” Judge George Phelan told the lawyers after the hearing. “Ultimately this was about loyalty family and the dignity of an American business icon whose perhaps most important goal and legacy is father and grandfather.”
    While Dauman’s removal from the company helped settle lawsuits in Massachusetts and Delaware, it didn’t end three investor complaints filed in June and July and later consolidated. A judge in Delaware ruled Thursday that Sumner Redstone won’t have to answer lawyers’ questions under oath and stopped the process of gathering evidence until he decides whether to allow the case to proceed, a ruling that won’t come until next year.
    The shareholders challenged decisions made by Viacom’s board to keep Redstone as a board member and as well as Redstone’s decision to replace certain Viacom directors, including Dauman and George Abrams.
    The case is Dauman v. Redstone, 16-E0020, Massachusetts Probate and Family Court, Norfolk County (Canton).
    Before it's here, it's on the Bloomberg Terminal.

    Monday, October 24, 2016

    Woman in Derzon fight sprung from jail

    Woman in Derzon fight sprung from jail

    Lori Laatsch is a free woman again.
    Laatsch, whose unsuccessful  bid to get control of the lucrative Derzon Coins business sparked eight years of litigation, was jailed Oct. 6 for contempt of court when she failed to produce financial records and assets despite a court order demanding that she do so.
    Milwaukee County Judge David Borowski freed Laatsch Thursday, even though she still has not turned over all the financial records. Borowski's action came after attorneys told him they were negotiating a settlement between the Derzon estate and Laatsch.
    In May, Borowski ordered Laatsch to pay the estate $1.2 million  to cover the legal and related expenses incurred by the estate as the result of her actions. The Derzon estate is seeking the records so it could collect on the judgment, and Laatsch is still required to turn over her financial records.
    Laatsch has lost  every major decision in the case. In 2012, Milwaukee County Judge Jane Carroll threw out a will that gave Laatsch control of Derzon Coins, a West Allis business worth more than $1 million. The total estate was worth about $3 million when David Derzon, the founder of the company, died in 2007 at age 83.
    His second wife, Rebecca Derzon, died the following year at age 59 after ingesting a fatal combination of pills and alcohol.  Though Laatsch and Rebecca Derzon were half-sisters, the women had gone decades without seeing each other. That changed shortly before David Derzon died when Laatsch reconnected with Rebecca Derzon.
    Before Rebecca Derzon's death, Laatsch persuaded her to rewrite her will, cutting out David Derzon's two adult sons from a previous marriage and giving majority ownership of the family business to Laatsch. Rebecca Derzon, who was battling depression and substance abuse, signed that will even though it had the word draft stamped on it.

    Sunday, October 23, 2016

    All Lawyers live in glass houses by definition.

    All Lawyers live in glass houses by definition.

    Ix
    x

    kenneth ditkowsky

    1:08 PM (18 hours ago)
     
     
     
    A young lawyer who elects to ply his profession in Cook County, Illinois soon learns the lesson – it is not what you know, it is who you know that counts.     In this environment, I cut my teeth, opened my office and hung out my shingle.    As has been my history I was so ‘wet behind the ears’ that when I walked down (or up) LaSalle Street I left a trail of droplets.      Fortunately for me, I was not alone.   
     
    I however had a big advantage.   My years at Jackson Realty and as an associate of Joe Ronsley were not a waste.   I learned the lesson that if I told everyone everything I knew everyone would be as smart as me – thus, I kept quiet and listened.    Fortuitously, my silence did several things, to wit: 1) my ignorance was not exposed, 2) I could stay in the background, 3) my mannerisms made me resemble my father’s oldest brother (my uncle) 4) when I did speak I had the knowledge as to what everyone else was thinking and had the opportunity to build on it and 5) I had contact with real live people, had negotiated successful contracts, and knew something.    All I lacked was knowledge of how things worked in real life.   (I also had the vigor and innocence of youth)
     
    Thus, when in the middle of a trial I personally received a telephone call from the Judge presiding over the trial and heard the following: “the bid is 5” click, I did not know what all that meant, but I did know enough to call my father’s lawyer and ask him.    I was shocked when he told me.   I now knew that the case was fixed and unless I was going to prostitute myself I was going to lose the case.    (I did lose at the trial level, but, unplanned circumstances intervened and I was able extricate justice for my client out of the jaws of corruption.    I did this without paying a dime in bribes to any one.   (That is another story unrelated to this one).
     
    The practice of law in Cook County, Illinois in the 1960s was for the most part an exercise by lawyers who were trying to earn a living resolving disputes promulgated by people who were business oriented and looking to make money for themselves in a growing economy with as little fuss as possible.    Yes, there were people who were litigious, but for the most part only a few of the clients who entered my office were ‘nasty’ and for the most part their opponents were ‘nice people.’     In fact, it was not usual that a person who was on the opponent’s side of litigation that I engaged in would subsequently inquire of me whether I was free to represent them in a matter unrelated to the matter that had previously been litigated.    As an example, it was the settlement of a litigation matter that got me the task of simplifying the Articles of Condominium.   
     
    Referrals came rapidly after I opened my office.    Some of the referrals came from unlikely sources and some of the clients were very memorable.    Others were routine.    
     
      Donald Swift and his wife Julia were two of the nicest people I ever met and I will remember them forever.     They were hard working people who after world war 2 solved the housing crisis for themselves by over -extending themselves and purchasing what they thought to be a six-apartment building in “uptown.”      They borrowed the money to make the relevant purchase from the Commercial National Bank.     The Bank was a hands-on operation that monitored their customers’ accounts and knew every customer personally.      The President of the Bank heard rumblings that the person (Walter Dolan) who sold the aforesaid six flat building to the Swifts was desirous of acquiring it back, but, the Swifts were not interested in selling the property back at Mr. Dolan’s price.
     
    Being Chicago, Dolan had a strong political tie and he also had a City job.     It was no trick for him to visit his ‘clout’ and arrange for “building inspectors” to visit the Swift building and write it up.    The Bank president anticipated this problem and recognized that when Dolan owned the building, he (Dolan) had converted a three flat into a six flat.    Such an activity was encouraged because of the WW2 housing shortage.    To accommodate the requirement of an exit and entrance for each apartment a stairwell was jerry-rigged on one side of the building.    The dimensions of the stairway were minimum and now in violation of the 1959 Chicago Building Code.    A deconversion of apartments would reduce the value of the building substantially and turn the First mortgage into a non-conforming loan.
     
    The Chicago building department visited the dwelling and issued a deconversion order.     This was subsequently enforced by a complaint being filed by the City of Chicago which sought a fine and deconversion.     (Deconversion was only ordered in extreme circumstance) The Bank recommended that I be hired.    The Swift’s engaged me.
     
    It took one telephone call to verify that but for Dolan’s clout there would have been no inspection, no complaint, and no harassment.     I was told not to mess with him as he could do me severe harm.     Of course, telling me something like that was akin to waiving a red flag in front of a bull.    I drafted a civil complaint against Dolan claiming that Dolan had violated the covenants of warranty in the deed by not providing Swift with a legal six flat building and that his not informing Swift of his conversion of the premises from a three flat to a six flat was a ‘fraud.’   
     
    The Building court proceeding was a ‘joke.’    I noted that the Judge ran through his call deposing of cases like the wind.    A case would be called, and bingo the Judge fined the defendant $25.00.    Every case was the same.   
    “John Doe”
    “property located at xyz street, building violation, poor maintenance”
    “fine defendant $25.00 _ next case”
    I sat in the back of the courtroom and marveled.     The defendant did not need me.    In roughly 30 seconds he would out of the courtroom $25.00 poorer.    However, as I sat there the “prosecutor” sat down beside me and started a conversation.    He informed me that my client’s case was very serious as there was the element of a conversion of the property from a three flat to a six flat without a permit issued by the City of Chicago.    I listened politely.    He then informed me that by paying him $25.00 he would talk to the Judge and the Judge would fine my client only $25.00.    
     
    To say that I was shocked was an understatement.    I was almost speechless; however, I managed to tell the Prosecutor that I intended to demand a jury trial, as I wanted to sue the prior owners.   With a look of pure contempt on his face the prosecutor got up and walked away.   
     
    Finally, my client’s case was called.     The name was called, and it was followed by the Judge fining my client $25.00 and the telling the clerk to call the next case.     I interrupted:
    “Judge is it not customary for prior to finding a person guilty and rendering fine for some evidence of wrongdoing be heard?”
    You could cut the air in the courtroom with a knife.    Had I peed on the courtroom floor it would have caused less of a sensation.    However, the Judge looked at the prosecutor, and said to him: “do you have any evidence?”    Thereupon the prosecutor called to the bench an elderly man who looked more like a skid row resident than a city building inspector how testified that he had been to the building and noted that there was a conversion of the building from a three flat to a six flat without a permit.    My evidentiary objections were ignored as the demand for a jury trial that was filed with my appearance.  
     
    Upon the completion of the testimony, the Judge found my client guilty and fined him $25.00.   I was young and naïve and therefore admonished the judge that I should be allowed to cross examine the witness.   Reluctantly and impatiently the Judge said: “OK”   On cross I elicited from the “inspector” that he could not tell me if the subject building was North of Madison Street or South of Madison Street.    He also had trouble remembering if the building was brick, stone, or wood.    Proudly I faced the Judge who said: “I find the defendant guilty and fine him $200.00).
     
    Undaunted, I said the Judge:
    “In America as I understand the system, the defendant has a right to defend the charges against them.”   
    I then called my client to the stand and we produced the documents in the City of Chicago file that Mr. Dolan had obtained and filed in order to make the conversation from a three flat to a six flat during WW 2.      I then asked the court to take Judicial notice of the applicable statute and handed a copy to the judge and the prosecutor.
    The judge looked at me as if I was insect and asked: “Are you finished?”   I realized that the game was over and said: “yes.”      The Judge then fined my client $200.00 and went on to the next case.
     
    Unbeknown to the Judge, I ordered my own shorthand court reporter to be in the courtroom and take down word for word every utterance that heard by her uttered by the Judge, the Prosecutor, the witnesses and me.    She did.    An hour later, I filed with the Clerk a NOTICE OF APPEAL and a request for the record to be prepared.
     
    A week later, the court reporter called me on the telephone to inform me that she was very sorry, but, persons unknown had broken into her vehicle last night as she was travelling home and stolen her notes of the Swift hearing.    She was extremely sorry and embarrassed, but, unless the police recovered her notes she could not write a transcript of the hearing.   
     
    I called my court reporter (who had observed the proceedings from the front row of the courtroom) She delivered the next afternoon a copy of the transcript of proceeding.    I filed it and delivered a copy to the Judge to certify.     An hour later, I heard from the prosecutor that the Judge had sua sponde vacated his order finding my client guilty and vacated the fine.    He (the prosecutor) wanted to know if I still intended to appeal.     I said no, and then wondered why he asked me?
     
    I had my answer shortly thereafter.    It appeared that the prosecutor was indeed hired by the City of Chicago as an attorney, but, it appeared that he had neglected to attend college, law school, or obtain a license to practice law.     I conveyed that information to the appropriate authority.
     
    The case was far from over.    I was a pariah in the building court, and the building department was upset with me.    It seems that several young newspaper souls had discovered a ‘good story’    They were raising hell and *****.     Worse yet, one of the Judges in the building Court had to ride with me to a conference wherein we were both speaking.   As we rode, I informed the Judge that I had been in his courtroom and I noted that the prosecutor assigned to it by the City was talking prior to each pro se hearing with defendants.    I just happened to mention that I noted that in each pro se hearing he (the judge) had always fined the guilty pro-se the same $25.00.     I suggested that when Court opened tomorrow that he fine the first pro-se he found guilty $2,000.00.  
     
    The next morning, Tim O’Hara (a friend and prosecutor in the building court) and I hurried to the Judge’s courtroom to watch.   Sure, enough we both observed the prosecutor assigned to the Courtroom make his rounds of the pro-se defendants.   The Judge entered the Courtroom, and called the first case.   It was a pro-se.   This judge listened to all the evidence, asked for arguments and then asked if both sides were ready for his ruling.   Both side nodded.    The Judge then found the pro-se guilty and fined in $2,000.00.  
     
    The courtroom erupted!     The pro-se was stunned.   Every pro-se in the Courtroom was up on his feet and advancing toward the prosecutor.    The prosecutor looked like he had been hit over the head with a sledge-hammer.    The pro-se blurted out: “you *****, I paid you ****”    I was amused to note that sitting in the front row was my Court reporter taking down every word.    The long and short was that prosecutor was arrested by the Sheriff and disappeared.    (The Judge vacated the finding and set the case for a new trial).
     
    Building court remained a cesspool, however, for the most part when I had to go there I received a fair shake.     Unfortunately, I did not remain ‘pure as the driven snow.’     One afternoon, I received a telephone from Tim informing me that Judge W**** want to see me and wondered if I could wait for him to arrive at my office.    I agreed. 
     
    About 45 minutes later Tim and the Judge arrived.    The Judge was visibly shaken.    He handed me a note.    It was a death threat from persons who we believed were a nominal party to a serious business building violation case.      The deputy sheriff assigned to the Courtroom informed Tim that the note that he brought to his (Tim’s) attention was from people associated with the American Nazi Party.     I agreed to be in the Judge’s courtroom the next morning when the ‘case’ was heard.     I talked with a friend who was a Federal Law Enforcement officer who suggested that the fact that a threat was made was a good sign.    If the Nazis had any guts they would have killed the Judge already and if he followed the law he should be safe.
     
    This was not very comforting to the Judge; however, he was feeling a little better, especially, with Tim and I both in his courtroom when he heard the case.      Having had a problem with the Nazis myself, my sympathy for them was zero and I suggested that we go on the offensive.    I told the Judge to order the immediate demolition of the premises.    The Judge looked at me with disbelief – I said, if you are uncomfortable with the order, you can vacate it sua sponde before it is carried out – BUT I need the leverage.
     
    The next morning after a full hearing complete with experts etc., the Judge entered an order of demolition instanter.    The Attorney for the building owner went ballistic.    I approached him and invited him to coffee.     At coffee, he informed me that he had been trying to evict the Nazis and they were fighting him tooth and nail.    His client had was going to suffer a pecuniary loss, but at least he would get rid of the bastards.    I innocently suggested that he file a Motion to Reconsider and Motion for a Writ of Assistance to remove the Nazis from the building.    I thought that he was going to “kiss me.”     A half an hour later the building’s attorney filed the Motion and 30 seconds thereafter a couple deputy sheriffs were out on the street to exercise the Writ of Assistance.
     
    The American Nazis moved out and opened their new facility in another building.    Tim arranged for an inspection and fortuitously a new building department case seeking demolition was filed the very next day.    This time, I approached the Attorney for the building and suggested that his client’s problem might be his tenant.      I did not have to draw any pictures.    Within 30 minutes the case was called and the attorney asked the judge assigned to the case for a Writ of Assistance.    It was granted and the America Nazis were again evicted.   
     
    This time they got the picture and moved out of the County, and not threatening the life of judge again.    They did put Tim, the Judge, and myself on their mailing list.   We received their hate mail for years.      However, it was a bit expensive.    I purchased two gross of fishing weights and shared them with my two friends.    Each time we got a solicitation letter, we jammed the material back into the self-addressed return envelope and added a couple of the fishing weights.    
     
    The Nazis stayed far from the Judge or Tim, but when they decided to March in Skokie I was drawn into conflict with them again.     This confrontation had the potential of being much more serious as many of my clients had be Holocaust victims and they desired to end the menace.     One of my real estate clients had tasted blood and want more.   (He was not Jewish, but had been circumcised) During the war years he was a young teenager and after incarceration had escaped from a detention center.   He joined the Polish resistance.      The thought of renewing his acquaintanceship with the Nazi supermen was like a dream come through.    He lusted after the opportunity to *****.      Several of my clients who had escaped to Israel and emigrated to the United States had purchased weapons and were taking courses on how to effectively use them.     Policemen from Skokie were rehearsing the roles in what was fast becoming an assassination.     I and other lawyers were preparing to mount legal defenses for any of the ruffians who felt aggrieved by the Nazi march –
     
    Fortunately for everyone the Nazis did not have the ‘guts’ to confront the Holocaust survivors who lusted ******.   
     
    As for me, my dedication to the First Amendment and the Rule of Law was temporarily diverted.     The hypocrisy that I exhibited and unfortunately still exhibit has not abated.     I cannot reconcile my feelings and conduct with the recent SCOTUS cases and make no excuses or effort to do so.    While I personally believe that the First Amendment is the core value of our Democracy I do not believe that I must be silent or complacent when others express their desire to eradicate Equal Protection of the Law, Freedom of Religion, Equal Rights, Human Rights, Civil Rights *****.       
     
    During the distraction of the American Nazi Party, the Democratic Party of Cook County was operating for the benefit of Walter.     He was unhappy with the result in the building court and decided to have another go at it.     Again the building inspectors appeared and again a notice of violation was sent out.    This time, an administrative hearing was scheduled.   The beauty of an Administrative hearing was the fact that all the hearing officers were lawyers and all had busy schedules an no one took them seriously  - unless there was some sort of drive on.    Thus, the date for the hearing dragged on and dragged on and finally when the hearing was held  Dolan did not appear.    I waived the Court order dismissing the building violation order and the proceeding was dismissed.   
     
    Once again Walter made the trip down to the building department and once again he was able to obtain an inspection.     When the case was assigned to a Courtroom and Judge, Dolan got a surprise.   My motion to dismiss on the basis of res judicata was granted and the case was over.    He had used up his favors and his clout was annoyed with him.    
     
    However,  when this fiasco had first raised its ugly head I sued Walter Dolan.      To both our surprises we received notice that the case was on the trial call.   A clerking service answered the call and we were set for trial on a day certain.
     
    On the day certain I appeared with my client, Julia Swift.     Dolan appeared with his attorney Max Pat.    Max had previously been one of the chiefs at the City of Chicago law department.     Pat could charm the birds out of the trees and knew everyone.    Both the Judge and I called him Max.    I was Mr. Ditkowsky and the Judge was Judge *****.    
     
    As was our custom everything that we could agree to was stipulated in advance and the only real issue was whether or not Dolan had the scienter  necessary to commit fraud, and damages.    We had agreed that if there was a judgment for Swift, Dolan would pay for the costs of defending the building court cases and related matters.    This was a substantial sum.     My primary witness was my client.    I also intended on calling Walter as an adverse witness.
     
    The trial commenced with opening statements.   With Max as my opponent it was a love fest.    Max was the perfect gentleman and pointed out that just because my client was an ignorant lout she could not have relied on anything that Dolan may or may not have said as he was one step about a laborer and *****.    He contended that there was no right to rely.
     
    Mrs. Swift looked the part!    Central casting could not have produced for me a more perfect witness.    I walked up to the witness box and started with my first question:
                    Ditkowsky:   “Ms. Witness was is your name!”
    This was followed by dead silence.    You’d have thought that I asked to explain the formula E =mc2.    I tried again.   “Mrs. Swift, what is your name?”    ****”Mrs. Julia Swift what is your name?”     I was about to cry, and hit on the idea of asking her where she lived.    Again I was greeted with silence.   Finally the Judge turn to me and said:  “Mr. Ditkowsky, what are you going to do next – your client does not seem to remember her name or address?”
     
    I then called Walter Dolan pursuant to Section 60 – which was the adverse witness authorization.    Dolan took the stand, smirked, and looked me square in the eye.     I asked his name, address and profession and he answered rapidly and as the voice of authority.     He stated that he was a builder.
     
    Desperately, I asked him what he built.      For the next ten minutes Dolan bragged that he built the Board of Trade, Prudential Building, the Standard Oil building etc etc.     He told me that he was the principal developer of all these major Chicago landmarks.      I listened very respectfully, and made inquiry as to  his expertise and in particular I asked him if he was familiar with the City of Chicago building code.    To my utter dismay Walter told me (under oath) that he authored it!    
     
    I could not resist.   Did you know that every major developer in the United States consulted with him as to the efficacy of their projects *****?     I looked over at Max.    He had slid out of his chair was not sitting under the counsel table.    The judge had mercy, and stopped the trial with the words:  Judgment for the plaintiff Julia and Donald Swift and against Walter Dolan in the amount of ***** dollars.    He then turned to me and said:  “you are not believing any of the horse feathers that this witness is testifying to?     I laughed and said – “Judge it  is all under oath!”    As Julia was no longer in the Courtroom, the Judge, Max and I all went out for coffee.     (Walter paid the judgment)
     
    I never represented the Swift’s again.     Max and I had several cases together later on, but neither of us ever forgot Walter