Subject: Judicial reform
Date: November 26, 2015
From: Ken Ditkowsky
There is a consensus among all of us that we want judicial reform. The corrupt judges, dishonest attorneys, and criminal judicial officials are all intolerable. They are a blight on our democracy and a cancer to our civilization. Our problem is that we are at odds as to what must be done.
Many among us would like to chuck the system as it exists today and literally start over. They reason that democracy is for the common man, and therefore it makes sense that the common man take control and deal with the problems as they arise. Many would like to preserve some of the status quo but do something less radical. Finally there are the rest of us who want to preserve the structure, but do surgery on the personnel who operate the mechanisms. Simply put – let’s enforce the law strictly and let us do some Honest investigations and put the crooks in jail enforcing the laws that we have now.
Radical reform has been tried, but it does not work. It does not work because reinventing the wheel is quite difficult and we are dealing with people who are as smart as we are – or smarter – and it does not take them long to take advantage of our deficiencies. In a similar manner much of the good intentions of each of the other approaches are thwarted. For instance, Janet Phalen pointed out in California under the guise of reform the State assumed responsibility for guardians by licensing them. What this degenerated into was more professional guardians who were available to prey on the elderly and the disabled and we harder to get rid of. A whole bureaucracy developed designed to protect the public, but in fact acted to protect the miscreant guardians.
In America’s more than two centuries of existence we have developed an extensive program for protecting the civil rights of our elder, our disadvantaged, and our infirm. We have an extensive body of laws and procedures that when honestly administered protect the citizens’ human and Constitutional Rights. Unfortunately, enforcement has been sorely lacking. The spoils system (patronage) has made public service a way to reward the indolent, the incompetent, and the well connected. Where we have a dominant political party controlling the wheels of government the object of government stops being serve the people, but preserve the status quo and the power of the dominant political party. Judges are slated and elected not for their Honesty, integrity, or knowledge of the law, but because of whom they know and/or paid off. Judge M. Connors’ reported statements as to why she should be slated for an Appellate Court judgeship are key examples.
How do we as citizens get the best and the brightest to consider public service of elected office such as a judgeship? I do not know.
How do we induce the most qualified candidates for public office to consider public service positions? I do not know.
What would attract the most honest of our citizens to consider the cause of Justice as their vocation?
I do not know.
How can we make certain that whomever we do induce into public service and the cause of justice retains his/her integrity and is not tempted by the dishonest inducements of the many business and civic leaders who are today exhibiting their contempt for the core values of America? I do not know, but here I have a few ideas, to wit:
1. Enforce the law[1], and in particular when a public servant violates the law or a fiduciary duty throw the book at him/her. For example, a Judge who acts without jurisdiction, such as occurred in the Mary Sykes case 09 P 4585 is not only reprimanded but disbarred. Judge Connors knew or should have known that the jurisdictional requirements of the guardianship code 755 ILCS 5/11a – 10 were ignored. Certainly she knew that she never held a hearing as to Mary’s competency and knew that she rubber stamped a wrongful order drafted by the two guardian ad litem and an attorney for the petitioner.
2. Because of Judge Connor’s malpractice (or criminal conduct) approximately 3 million dollars was unaccounted for and it is believed and therefore alleged based upon very reliable information never inventoried or reported by one or more of the 18 USCA 371, 18 USCA 242 co-conspirators as either State or Federal Income. Thus, collecting from the co-conspirators the income tax, interest and penalties that are due to both the State and the United States of America. A public official who abandons his oath of office deserves to pay the price in full for his perfidy.
3. Require repayment of any and all unlawful compensation paid from the Estates of the elderly and the disabled that was wrongful. Simply put. Jerome Larkin (IARDC) may not have received a white envelope filled with currency. His spouse might have received employment intended to mask remuneration for Larkin’s cover-up of Judge Connors activity. In a similar manner another member of the family might have been the conduit. It makes no difference – Larkin must pay the Federal and State Income taxes on the money. He can recover the principal from his nominee.[2]
4. Apply the law. 18 USCA 2 and 3 define accessories. They are consistent with 18 USCA 371 and 18 USCA 242. The use of intimidation emanating from Lawyer Disciplinary Commissions is an assault on Lawyer rule 8.3 and 18 USCA 4 as well as the First Amendment and the State Constitution. No co-conspirator should go unpunished. The Conspiracy is an ISIS like assault on the core principles of America and promulgators such as Jerome Larkin and his gang cannot be allowed to escape. Larkin should be made an example.
The tools are not only available but have to be used regardless of what remedy is ultimately decided upon.
The necessity for immediate enforcement of the law is exemplified by the JoAnne Denison disciplinary case. What crime did JoAnne Commit? Pursuant to the First Amendment and Article 1 of the Illinois Constitution she published a blog that reiterated the call that we both made for an HONEST INVESTIGATION of the elderly cleansing scandal. Because lawyers and judges were involve in the obvious criminal conduct under Rule 8. 3 the lawyer crimes had to be reported to law enforcement. Of course this was done. 18 USCA 4 requires that the lawyer/judge crimes be reported to Federal law enforcement. This also was done. Because a citizen has a duty to report to local law enforcement and not cover=up serious crimes e-mails were sent to the authorities and a blog – MaryGSykes was written.
Instead of complying with his/their oath of office Larkin and the IARDC not only attempted to silence the blog of JoAnne but petitioned the Supreme Court for an interim suspension of her license. They argued to the Court that her exposure of judicial and lawyer corruption in the Circuit Court of Cook County was akin to yelling fire in a crowded theater. The Supreme Court of Illinois issued the suspension and thereafter a 3 year suspension.
The Rule of Law has to mean something. The Denison case (and many others like it) demonstrate that the nadir of the legal profession, and especially certain judges, lawyers, and judicial officials (such as Jerome Larkin ***) have no respect to honesty, honor, integrity, their oaths of office or America’s core values. Under any system these public officials are a blight and a cancer. It is respectfully submitted that society, and in particular American Society, has to address criminal and civil prosecution of these miscreants post haste. The Jerome Larkin public official is a clear and present danger who is more deadly and more dangerous than ISIS or any of the radical Islamic terror societi
[1] A public official takes an oath. The oath should have meaning. A public official has a contract with the public. Like the tradesman, a judge or other elected official who fails to administer the law should not only have to pay damages to the public, but should not profit by the tenure in office that he has disgraced. As an example, Judge Connors was (or should have been) aware that she took from Mary Sykes her humanity, her freedom, her liberty, her property and her Constitutional Rights when she appointed a guardian for her. The fact is that Connors was so careless as to allow the proceedings to proceed without the service of a summons required by 755 ILCs 5/11a – 10, the jurisdictional 14 days prior notice to Mary’s close (near) relatives, or an actual hearing as to whether Mary was incompetent or not and/or if found incompetent the extent to the disability. This travesty may have pleased the two guardian ad litem, the guardian, the attorney for the guardian and all who would ultimately profit from this arrangement, but, it was a total breach of Judge Connors’ oath. She should therefore forfeit not only her pension but repay her salary based upon a total breach of contract.
Going one step further, Judge Connors’ appointment to the bench by her own public admissions was based upon clout. She actively sought the office and was willing to bend decorum to obtain it. Here perversion of the office therefore mandates that she and those judges like her lose not only their law licenses, but any license to hold public office again.
[2] In a similar manner, the various techniques for transferring funds to public officials should be addressed.
1. Bargain purchase: The bargain should be taxed as ordinary income in full. Reporting the same as a capital is a tax fraud.
2. Repayment of loan. The gambit of the public official borrowing money from X Bank, and the briber paying off the loan should be taxed as of the date of the loan as ordinary income. (The tax is on 100% of the loan principal )
3. Bargain investments = or tangible investments. These should be valued and taxed.
4. Campaign contributions. As judges are rarely defeated on the retention ballot – any campaign contribution should be viewed as suspicious. In the initial instance, in Chicago being slated by the Democratic machine is the functional equivalent of election.
5. Other devices disclosed elsewhere.
Ken Ditkowsky
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for commenting.
Your comment will be held for approval by the blog owner.