Chinese law professor expelled over article

Editor's note: Does this sound like something the ARDC is foisting on Attorney Kenneth Ditkowsky?  Lucius Verenus, Schoolmaster, ProbateSharks.com

 

Chinese law professor expelled over article

• 0
• Share to Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• Share on LinkedIn
• Add to PersonalPost
• Share via Email
• Print Article
• More

By Associated Press, Published: December 10

BEIJING — A Chinese law professor said Tuesday that he has been expelled from his college after he refused to recant an article he wrote calling for constitutional rule in China.
The expulsion of Zhang Xuezhong from East China University of Political Science and Law in Shanghai comes at a time when the Chinese authorities are tightening ideological controls, and weeks after Peking University in Beijing dismissed the liberal economist Xia Yeliang from its faculty. Both Zhang and Xia champion free speech and the rule of law, and both believe their expulsions are politically motivated to punish their views.

    

Zhang, a lecturer at the Shanghai school since 2001, said he was notified orally of the university’s decision Monday and that he plans to defend himself with a lawsuit against the school once he receives written notice.
“Taking up the legal means will have no effect on my case, but I will use every possibility to counter the (state) power so that the power would think twice when it persecutes others in the future,” Zhang said.
The university’s Communist Party chief, Du Zhichun, declined to discuss the matter when reached by phone.
Zhang said the institute accuses him of using the school’s email system to share his book “New Common Sense.” The book criticizes China’s one-party rule.
The school also says Zhang has imposed his political views upon university faculty and staff and that he has taken advantage of his teacher’s role to spread among students his political views in violation of teachers’ ethical rules, Zhang said.
Zhang said university officials failed to give one example in which he fed his political views to students in the classroom and that exchanging political views with students as equals should be allowed. Zhang said he noted to school officials that the university has forced the government-sanctioned political views upon students.
Political indoctrination is part of the curriculum for Chinese students throughout their school years.
In June, Zhang riled the university leadership with an article in which he criticized the unusual campaign by the Beijing establishment against advocacy of constitutionalism. The Chinese Communist Party leadership has been wary of constitutionalism because it has the potential to undermine the party rule.
Following the June article, Zhang was banned from teaching any course at the university, but the censure failed to make Zhang contrite. The internal notice said Zhang has failed to realize his mistakes and act to correct them.
“I cannot admit mistakes that do not exist,” Zhang said.

This article (like the Greylord matter)

kenneth ditkowsky	11:59 AM (1 minute ago)
to Tim, Tim, NASGA, me, JoAnne, 60m, tips, tips, SUNTIMES, Cook, Eric, matt, IllinoisLawyer., illinois.ardc

Tim,

This article (like the Greylord matter) is the reason that thechange in mission for the Mr. Larkin and the IARDC is so sinister.    The mission of the IARDC is to protect the public.   Instead of protecting the public and do what they are delegated, in the Sykes case, the Gore Case, Wyman Case, Tyler cases et al they (Mr. Larkin and the IARDC) in an ultra viresmanner decided that their mission was to silence critical comment and calls for an investigation of clearly miscreant and illegal activity on the part of persons they defined as "judicial officials."   For instance, Adam Stern, Cynthia Farenga, Peter Schmiedel **** got a free pass even though it was obvious that the Judge, Stern, Farenga, Schmiedel et al knew that the sole purpose of the sanction proceeding promulgated against me (in the Sykes case in 2010) was to intimidate me and get me (like the half dozen or other attorneys that Gloria Sykes brought into the picture).    

When I was not intimidated, the Judge (who lacked jurisdiction and knew or should have known this fact) fined me approximately $5000.00.   When I was still not intimidated and won my appeal in stepped Mr. Larkin and charged me with being critical of Judge Connors and Judge STuart.   He charged that I had the audacity to complain that Mary Sykes had been denied her liberty and property and I pointed out that a million dollars in collectibles (more or less - it could be as much as five million is JoAnne is correct that most of the coins were uncirculated) had not been inventoried!   According to Mr. Larkin it was ethically challenged for me complain to law enforcement that as the Rule of Law had not been observed, no jurisdiction had been obtained = because the jurisdictional criterion of the statute was ignored - and Mary had been railroaded into a guardianship and her estate ravaged.    

As I reasoned that if the 'loot' had not been inventoried, it probably had not been reported as income to the IRS,  Mr. Larkin's attorneys went balastic.   One of Mr. Larkin's attorneys on cross examination walked up to me and with all the authority that he could muster asked me if I was repentant for writing Mr. Holder = the attorney general of the United States of America.   Of course I was not and am not - I AM A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.    The IARDC hearing panel was 'shocked!' and to demonstrate to me that I ought to have remorse for exercising my First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights they recommended that the Supreme Court suspend my law license for four years!    

I have no remorse!  As a citizen the United States Supreme Court has vindicated my right to associate with people who are victims of 'elder cleansing' and to speak, write, and otherwise express my opinions as to quality of justice (or the lack thereof).  Such is basic America 101.  Every pre-teen who desires to enter high school has to pass a constitution test.   This fact is elicited from each one.  [Except those who are designated to be lawyers for the IARDC!] 

Thus,  I Appealed to Mr. Larkin's Review panel.  Amazingly briefs on this subject were required!   As the Supreme court has ruled that content related speech is beyond the perview of government, it amazes me that there is any issue to be determined.    The IARDC attorney cited the Sawyer case as authority for the IARDC to regulate my speech.    That was amazing as The Supreme Court upheld Ms. Sawyer's right to speak out against the Smith Act.   The case clearly vindicates my right to speak out against certain judges refusing to comply with title 11a of the Probate Act and in particular the criterion required to obtain jurisdiction.   Indeed as Mr. Larkin has taken the evidence deposition of the presiding Judge in the Sykes case and on his redirect elicited from her statements that are clear in pointing out that not only did she not require CT (plenary guardian) to meet the requirements, but, *****.   (Read her statement - you will not believe it!)

As all lawyers are supposed to know that a citizen has the absolute right to exercise his/her First Amendment Rights I filed a motion before the Review panel to dismiss - It was denied!   I filed in JoAnne Denison's proceeding a similar motion.   Not only was it denied, but her panel decided that I had a "conflict of interest."

Tim - I am not making this stuff up!  You have to read the brief filed by Mr. Larkin.   in his brief he makes it very clear that his mission statement is to obfuscate the decisions of the United States Supreme Court and to prosecute any attorneys who are critical of judges including but not limited to judges such as are reported in the new article attached, judges who are supposed to be neutral and give advice to litigants, ignore their statutory responsibilities etc.   Mr. Larkin has defined his mission as stopping lawyers under pain of losing their law licenses to ignore judicial misconduct and certainly not communicate with the Attorney General of the United States.   [I am sending Mr. Larkin and IARDC and the Illinois Bar copies of these e-mails as in my opinion as I exercise my First Amendment Rights are recall the events that are occurring I am noting questionable conduct that falls within the gambit of Himmel.   For instance, Mr. Larkin's attorney in asking me if I was repentant for reporting criminal conduct to the United States of America may have been guilty of obstruction of justice, aiding abetting the felony of tax evasion etc.   The statutory mission of the IARDC - whether Mr. Larkin agrees or not is to protect the public from miscreant conduct of lawyers.   Aiding a abetting tax evasion and/or obstruction of justice are criminal conduct and under Himmel I have to report the same]

Judy is of the opinion that I should cool it!   Ordinarily I would, however, this Ethical cleansing being accomplished by Mr. Larkin's negative mission creep that now places priority on denying lawyers their First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment Rights is so insidious and so dangerous to American Democracy that it would be amoral for me to stop beating the drum.  In 1936 lawyers and other concerned citizens allowed the National Socialists to do exactly what has been going on in the Sykes case and similar cases.    In the 70's, 80's, and 90's Lawyers kept quiet until a Federal prosecutor started to look into our judiciary.   15 judges went to jail, other resigned and a bunch of lawyers joined the rust to club fed.    

I cannot cease my efforts as I know that Mary Sykes and other senior citizens have lost their liberty and property rights and the judiciary and law enforcement do not seem to care.   The clear mandate of the statute is ignored.  The Judge connoted in the article is not an Illinois Judge; however, ****

Tim - we need right now an HONEST intelligent complete and comprehensive investigation of this entire dirty mess.  Our democratic institutions require that Americans of all occupations, colors, creeds, social standing, age, etc have full and comprehensive FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS free from the self appointed individuals and government agencies that want to prevent the free expression of ideas, free associations, and free access to other similarly minded individuals.   

 

Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

I had a telephone call

I had a telephone call a short while ago and was asked: "is there a new blackout on the subject of Elder Abuse/Financial Exploitation of senior citizens?"



Quite frankly I do not know - After Mr. Lyman published his book and was interviewed by CBS I would have thought that some progress in getting protection for grandma was being made. I do not know how America can sit back and allow grandma to be deprived of her liberty, property, civil and human rights and the press is so disinterested. I do understand why the political class is so silent - to some it appears that grandma's assets make great campaign war chests. To others protecting grandma is just too risky! Some have come forth but so far *****



Anyhow - I thought the following was a good summary of the law, to wit:



2 Horner Probate Prac. & Estates § 35:2

Horner Probate Practice and Estates

Database updated May 2012

Chapter 35. Eligibility, Appointment, and Qualification of Guardians of Disabled Persons

Michael P. McElroy, J.D.

Summary

§ 35:2. Jurisdiction and venue

Upon the filing of a petition by a reputable person or by the alleged disabled person personally, or on its own motion, the court may adjudge a person to be a disabled person only if it has been demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that the person is a disabled person as defined in section 11a-2 of the Probate Act.1 If the court adjudges a person to be a disabled person, the court may appoint: i) a guardian of his or her person, if it has been demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that because of his or her disability the disabled person lacks sufficient understanding or capacity to make or communicate responsible decisions concerning the care of his or her person; or ii) a guardian of his or her estate, if it has been demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that because of his or her disability the disabled adult is unable to manage his or her estate or financial affairs; or iii) a guardian of his or her person and of his or her estate.

In re Estate of Steinfeld, 158 Ill. 2d 1, 196 Ill. Dec. 636, 630 N.E.2d 801 (1994) (sibling had standing to challenge disability and guardianship order).2

The court has no jurisdiction to appoint a guardian for a nonresident of the county3 or state.4 A "nonresident" in this limited context means a disabled person who is beyond the jurisdiction of the Illinois courts and who has been adjudged a disabled person, and for whom a guardian has been appointed by a foreign court.5 Illinois courts should recognize the acts of foreign courts as valid, and recognize the guardian appointed by the foreign court as the guardian of a nonresident disabled person.6 However, the court may appoint a guardian over the estate of an adult domiciled in Illinois, but absent temporarily.7

When an alleged disabled person is a resident of Illinois, the proceeding must be instituted in the court of the county in which he or she resides.8 However, if the alleged disabled person is not an Illinois resident, the proceeding must be instituted in the court of a county in which his or her real estate or personal property is located.9

A proceeding to appoint a guardian of the person of an alleged disabled person is a proceeding in personam and is based on jurisdiction of the person.10 The status of disability may be determined only by a hearing on the petition and by overcoming the presumption that the respondent is not disabled.11 It is the finding of the court or the jury that a person is disabled which creates the status of disability.12 Disability cannot be presumed in order to establish jurisdiction.13 One of the requirements for obtaining proper jurisdiction is that service be made upon those relatives listed in the guardianship petition.14 [NB - all the cost relatives are required to be named - this was not done in Sykes! The attorney for the plenary guardian admitted on the transcript this failure - thus, as Mary Sykes has about a million dollars in fungible gold coins and similar assets the mention of this fact promulgates an angry letter by the guardian ad litem to the Illinois ARDC]

Where the probate court assumes jurisdiction of the person and estate of a disabled person, but another court acquires jurisdiction and appoints a guardian before the probate court does so, the appointment is valid and binding on all parties in any collateral attack.15 However, a finding by a court of another state, in a commitment proceeding, that a person borders on mental illness, does not constitute an adjudication of mental illness.16

Westlaw. © 2012 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.

Footnotes



1

755 ILCS 5/11a-3(a).

2

See In re Estate of Nelson, 250 Ill. App. 3d 282, 190 Ill. Dec. 212, 621 N.E.2d 81 (1st Dist. 1993).

3

Laird v. Dickirson, 241 Ill. 380, 89 N.E. 795 (1909).

4

McCormick v. Blaine, 345 Ill. 461, 178 N.E. 195, 77 A.L.R. 1215 (1931); In re Oelerich's Estate, 31 Ill. App. 2d 457, 176 N.E.2d 549 (1st Dist. 1961).

5

Parcher v. Reese, 202 Ill. App. 509, 1916 WL 2689 (3d Dist. 1916).

6

Parcher v. Reese, 202 Ill. App. 509, 1916 WL 2689 (3d Dist. 1916).

A one-time Illinois resident, subsequently adjudged a disabled person in Canada, is a "nonresident," entitling the Canadian representative to the Illinois funds and assets of the disabled person's estate as against the Illinois guardian. In re Spengler's Estate, 282 Ill. App. 607, 1935 WL 3762 (1st Dist. 1935).

7

See McCormick v. Blaine, 345 Ill. 461, 178 N.E. 195, 77 A.L.R. 1215 (1931).

8

755 ILCS 5/11a-7.

9

755 ILCS 5/11a-7.

10

In re Oelerich's Estate, 31 Ill. App. 2d 457, 176 N.E.2d 549 (1st Dist. 1961).

11

In re Oelerich's Estate, 31 Ill. App. 2d 457, 176 N.E.2d 549 (1st Dist. 1961).

12

In re Oelerich's Estate, 31 Ill. App. 2d 457, 176 N.E.2d 549 (1st Dist. 1961).

13

In re Oelerich's Estate, 31 Ill. App. 2d 457, 176 N.E.2d 549 (1st Dist. 1961).

14

In re Estate of Debevec, 195 Ill. App. 3d 891, 142 Ill. Dec. 302, 552 N.E.2d 1043 (5th Dist. 1990); Matter of Sodini, 172 Ill. App. 3d 1055, 123 Ill. Dec. 67, 527 N.E.2d 530 (4th Dist. 1988).

15

People ex rel. Kagy v. Seidel, 22 Ill. App. 2d 316, 160 N.E.2d 681 (1st Dist. 1959).

16

Moneta v. Hoinacki, 394 Ill. 47, 67 N.E.2d 204 (1946).





2 Horner Probate Prac. & Estates § 35:2



Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com