Days of Shame

Days of Shame

 

For years the learned profession of the law has come to enjoy ridicule and slander.    What do you call it when a bus load of lawyers crashes off a bridge into the Mississippi River and all are killed?    The answer:  “a good start!”        Metaphors for lawyers are not flattering and you can expect at every gathering someone is going to make a remark that suggests lawyers are dishonest, amoral, and the cause of everything bad in society.      As a lawyer it is always amusing to have one of the most vociferous and obnoxious of the lawyer baiters a day or so later come into my office asking for my help in resolving some legal problem that requires not only discretion but knowledge of facts that my client would blush if he had to disclose them to his wife.

 

That was before I stumbled into the ‘elder cleansing’ scandal and the War on the Elderly and the Disabled.     Prior to that time the lawyers that I dealt with by in large were honest, decent, well read and nice people.     Most lawyers were people who I could take at their word and trust with my deepest confidence.     The relationships were mutual.     The parasites that I ran into in the Mary Sykes case 09 P 4585 were a breed apart.      The worst ‘scum’ were a step up from these lawyers and had much more integrity.      A casual brush with one or more of them in a hallway in the Daley Center made my skin crawl and activated a need for a bath in lye soap.    

 

I had heard of such lawyers but except for Ms. ***** I had never had contact with any.      Exactly how I was so sheltered is a mystery, but most members of the profession (including the most irritating) were people I was not ashamed of.     That is, until yesterday, when the ABA published the article on JoAnne Denison’s suspension, and did not express outrage and a demand for the immediately impeachment of the offending jurists and all who acted in concert to assault the First Amendment.    The article is attached hereto and made part hereof as exhibit 1.

 

The Legal profession has on occasion not covered itself with glory.     The case of the Dred Scott decision the Supreme Court failed to meet its responsibility and stand up for core principals of America – Liberty and Justice.   Again in Buck vs Bell the Court failed to recognize the concept of Equal before the Law.    (This case was the legal justification for the Holocaust.)  In the JoAnn Denison case the America Bar Association and the organized Bar looked the other way as corrupt Illinois jurists rubber=stamped a ‘cover up’ orchestrated by outrageously corrupt lawyer disciplinarians who were openly and notoriously protecting criminals with law licenses who were ravaging the hard earned savings of the elderly and disabled.     In the Denison case the ‘booty’ being protected included but was not limited to a million dollars in gold coins (Sykes) and eighty pounds of silver coins (Gore).     Her blog also referred to large land thefts and the eight million dollar Tyler estate all of which were being covered up.     Most seriously, she was threatening the ‘grab’ of Mary Sykes’ million dollar home (including land) and disclosing the details of the tax evasion scheme that was essential to elder cleansing of Mary Sykes.  

 

The Bar Association with all this information at hand, reported the assault on First Amendment and the Bill of Rights by high ranking judicial criminals as if Denison had been admonished for eating one chocolate cookie too many.     There was no outrage, no call for an investigation (Honest or otherwise), and certainly not even a protest.    What there was however the editing was and cutoff of outrage that citizens expressed when they heard that the Judiciary had abdicated its responsibility and was protecting overt criminal activity?

 

It is no wonder that the public feels that a bus populated with lawyers falling off a bridge and killing all on board is a “good start!”     Indeed, in all candor, lawyers take an oath to defend the Constitution.    The Denison decision demonstrates that even though we require our ‘pre=teens’ to have knowledge of the Constitution prior to entering high school, we apparently do not require our lawyers to have knowledge of the document when charging $500 a hour to honest citizens for legal services.

 

The lawyers involved in the Denison case (including the Supreme Court justices) have demonstrated ‘contempt for the Rule of Law’ and those who attorn to such action are in breach of their oath.    Such individuals are a cancer and enemies of our democracy.       There is no excuse for any lawyer being a party to an assault on the basic and core values of American democracy and in particular the Bill of Rights.     The racism that the Illinois Disciplinary Commission (IARDC) and its administrator orchestrated in the Amu case (and against Diane Nash) is not an anomaly - it is a commonplace staple.    In most situations it is an undercurrent, but Jerome Larkin and his 18 USCA 242 co-conspirators are not ashamed of their conduct – they published in the Lanre Amu case that attorneys with a dark skin who complain concerning corruption are not welcome in Illinois to practice law.

 

While the Illinois Supreme Court has ruled that it is unethical (sans Rule 8.3 and 18 USCA 4) for lawyers to voice a call for an HONEST investigation once again I am a large group of lawyers who are afraid to voice opposition to the criminal element of our profession call for an HONEST investigation, and if wrongdoing is found for the most vigorous prosecution of the miscreants.     This is our call for a War Crimes trial of Jerome Larkin and his 18 USCA 371, 18 USCA 242 co-conspirators.    Justice Jackson is deceased.   But I am certain we can find another advocate for the concept of decency, honor, and integrity by public officials.

 

Exhibit 1:

LEGAL ETHICS

Lawyer gets suspension for blog posts about 'feeding frenzy' of connected lawyers

POSTED SEP 24, 2015 12:46 PM CDT

BY DEBRA CASSENS WEISS

---

An Illinois lawyer who blogged about a probate case has been suspended because of her posts alleging a “feeding frenzy” of court-connected lawyers in Chicago’s “sleazy world of probate.”

The lawyer, JoAnne Marie Denison, was suspended for three years, and until further order of the Illinois Supreme Court, the Legal Profession Blog reports. The Sept. 21 suspension follows a May decision in which a review board of the Illinois Registration and Disciplinary Commission rejected Denison’s First Amendment arguments[1].

Denison had contended her blog posts were true, but the review board cited findings that she had failed to present an objective factual basis to support her allegations[2]. Denison’s posts had impugned the integrity of judges and lawyers involved in a particular probate proceeding, the review board said.[3]

Denison’s blog had alleged a guardian was appointed for an elderly woman though she did not need one, and that the guardian had stolen from the woman and did not take proper care of her[4]. The blog posts referenced a “feeding frenzy” of lawyers, a “classic case of corruption” and a court “being spoonfed BS law by atty miscreants.”

Circuit courts in Cook County aren’t computerized, Denison alleged in her posts, because “politically connected judges and their puppet attorneys … would be exposed for what they are: money grubbing, family strife churning leeches that create nothing but pain and misery in a family while swiping free parking money out of a well funded estate.”   [5] 

---

[1] It should be noted that the Review Panel in its decision misrepresent the holding of United States vs. Alvarez 132 SC 2537.    They adopted an argument specifically rejected by the SCOTUS.      Journalism integrity would have required the author of the Article to note such a grossly Ethical lapse by the conscience of the Illinois Legal authority.    It is normally grossly unethical for a lawyer to misrepresent the law – but when the Lawyer Disciplinary Commission does so it all eyes turn toward Mecca.  

[2] The burden of proof is on the commission – this statement is an admission that the Commission did not follow it own rules as the proof.    A  kangaroo court is not usually part of the American credo.    The statement that follows the admission contradicts the first statement as a matter of law.

[3] This statement is interesting as this is exactly what the First Amendment and Article One of the Illinois Constitution were enacted to protect.    A lawyer professional group should have had kittens when they read this statement!    An ISIS attack on America would be no less and no more unacceptable.

[4] Rule 8.3 and 18 USCA 4 mandate such reports, 47 USCA 230 protects such posts, and 320 ILCS 20/4 bars disciplinary action.  735 ILCS 1 et seq reinforces the right to make such statements and take such a position.

[5] Interestingly this is the very same charges that the United States of America made (sans the computerization) in the Greylord cases in which several score of jurists and lawyers went to jail.     It is fortunate that the United States Attorney was not subject to the disciplinary process of Jerome Larkin and the IARDC.   The AG would have been disbarred and the more than a score of corrupt jurists would still be preying on the public.

 

Ken Ditkowsky