Showing posts with label Illinois Supreme Court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Illinois Supreme Court. Show all posts

Sunday, July 12, 2015

Judicial hopefuls rely on political consultants


Judicial hopefuls rely on political consultants

POSTED 9:48 PM, MAY 21, 2013, BY  AND , UPDATED AT 09:56PM, MAY 21, 2013
Judicial hopefuls rely on political consultants
WGN - Chicago
Terrence Lavin seemed an ideal candidate when he ran last year for a seat on the Illinois Appellate Court.
The veteran trial lawyer had served as president of the Illinois State Bar Association and taught law school for a decade. Two years earlier he had been appointed to fill a vacancy on the appeals court, giving him a crucial edge in experience over his opponents.
Still, to leave nothing to chance, Lavin hired two campaign consultants with unlikely backgrounds: Michael Tierney, a former supervisor in Chicago’s Water Department during a scandal-ridden period in its history, and Wallace “Gator” Bradley, a colorful former high-ranking gang leader who now sells his talents as an “urban translator.”
“I approached it like I was going to try a big case. I wanted to be fully prepared for anything that might come up,” said Lavin, who won a 10-year term on the court in November. “… Once I had to deal with the electoral system, I felt I better understand it and get people who could help me understand it.”
With candidates already retaining consultants for next March’s primary election, the role these consultants play has raised increasing concern. Watchdogs who have long lamented the political nature of judicial elections fear that the growing influence of money will taint campaigns that under Illinois Supreme Court rules are supposed to focus on legal experience instead of partisan political issues.
“It’s a strange game we’re playing when we elect judges,” said Malcolm Rich, executive director of the Chicago Council of Lawyers and a longtime critic of judicial elections. “We pretend that judges are not politicians, but we make judges go through the (political) process.”
Critics are also troubled by another all-too-common reality for political candidates, judicial hopefuls included. Candidates must make hefty contributions to the Cook County Democratic Party — usually about $30,000 apiece — in exchange for being slated, an influential endorsement in a county so heavily Democratic and one that brings an army of campaigners.
Lavin gave $35,000 to the county Democratic Party — all but $5,000 of it after he won the coveted slating.
Rich called these kinds of contributions troubling because they foster “a system that allows money to dictate who becomes a judge.”
The party payments are described in disclosure forms as donations, campaign expenses or, in at least one instance, a slating fee.
In an interview with the Tribune, Tierney said the payments are a fact of political life in Cook County.
“Anybody who’s endorsed will have to donate,” he said. “Because if you’re endorsed, then the party’s going to get you the signatures” needed to get on the ballot.
The judge-maker
CaptureJudicial elections have turned into such hard-nosed contests in part because of low voter turnout and even lower familiarity with candidates among voters. With judicial candidates so often politically inexperienced, a cottage industry of consultants — sometimes unusual political operatives like Tierney and Bradley — has emerged in Cook County.
For a fee, the consultants bring political savvy, navigating the networks of committeemen and precinct captains who can help candidates win slating, building candidates’ name recognition and smoothing introductions to the racial, ethnic or neighborhood groups that candidates might not otherwise reach. In some races, consultants handle such political heavy work as trying to knock opponents off the ballot and basics such as schooling a candidate on how and when to approach commuters for support.
Tierney downplayed the importance of his role in who becomes a judge.
“I am not the judge-maker,” he said in reference to a nickname he has earned in some quarters. “I’ve just been involved a lot.”
A plumber by trade, he got his start in political work as a precinct captain some two decades ago and developed a reputation for helping candidates win elections — all while working at the city Water Department, where employees were rewarded with promotions, raises and overtime in return for their patronage work.
A decade ago, the Hired Truck bribery scandal grew out of the Water Department, a sign of how deeply embedded political activity was in its ranks. During the investigation, Tierney said he was questioned by federal authorities and by the city inspector general’s office. His computer was even seized by investigators.
Tierney denied any wrongdoing, and he was never charged.
Tierney started working as a paid political consultant in 2000 while still employed as a supervisor at the Water Department. Before his retirement from the city in 2006, Tierney said, he confined his consulting to after work hours and on weekends. And n said, he no longer consults on campaigns because he is busy with his new job as political director of the politically powerful Chicago Journeymen Plumbers Local Union 130.
Aggressive tactics
Some judicial candidates criticize Tierney and other consultants for aggressive tactics once more common to other political contests — including bumping opponents off the ballot by challenging the signatures on their petitions. That was the fate that befell William O’Neal, a veteran Cook County judge who hoped to cap his long legal career on the appeals court.
O’Neal, who said he did not have money to hire a consultant, gathered most of his petition signatures after work and on weekends, sometimes with the help of friends but most often on his own. He had hoped his Irish-sounding name — though he is African-American — would help him against Lavin on Election Day. Many voters, ill-informed about the competing judicial candidates, are believed to often vote based on the perceived ethnicity of candidates’ names.
“They’re really trying to destroy you,” O’Neal, who retired from the Circuit Court last November, said of the campaign process for judges. “You have to hang in there and do the best you can.”
Tierney made no apology for his tactics, saying he would do whatever it takes to help clients win contested elections. And O’Neal’s petitions indeed contained signatures that were deemed invalid, knocking him off the ballot.
“I’ve seen too many people with great credentials lose to somebody with a great name,” Tierney said. “If someone’s got bad petitions, we’re going to get them off the ballot. That’s the rules. … It’s just trying to win the election. Should you not go all-out?”
The consultants insist they want a qualified judiciary and work only for candidates with good ratings from bar associations.
Tierney said he tells potential candidates, “If you’ve got bad bar ratings, I don’t want to be walking you around.
“You want somebody who’s a legitimate candidate,” he said.
But that wasn’t always the case. Tierney acted as a consultant and campaign manager for Chicago attorney David Adams in his 2012 bid to become a judge in the 9th Subcircuit, which runs from Chicago’s Far North Side into Evanston and Niles. Yet Adams was found not qualified or not recommended by a dozen local legal groups, including the Illinois State Bar Association, the Chicago Bar Association and the Chicago Council of Lawyers.
Tierney said he worked as Adams’ adviser as a favor to a former client.
Tierney’s clients are more than satisfied with his work. Adams, who lost his bid for judge, and Lavin both praised Tierney, saying he was indispensable to their campaigns.
Lavin paid Tierney $15,000 and Bradley $2,500 in consulting fees in 2012, according to election disclosure forms.
Key introductions
Adams said Tierney made key introductions for him to committeemen and other political players in the 49th Ward, helped organize campaign fundraisers and steered him to printing businesses for campaign brochures and ads. He also taught him fundamentals of campaigning — catching train riders, for instance, on their morning commute and not after work as they hurried home tired.
“I was completely blind when I walked into this thing and he was just so helpful,” Adams said.
Lavin also praised Bradley, the former Gangster Disciple, for opening doors for him in the African-American community, particularly at churches and block clubs. A former spokesman for gang leader Larry Hoover, Bradley was sentenced to four years in state prison for armed robbery and burglary years ago, but then-Gov. James Thompson pardoned him in 1990.
In an interview, Bradley said he took Lavin “from the suites to the streets.” He helps candidates tap into an African-American voting base that “everybody takes for granted” but can be a powerful force, particularly in races that require candidates to cover Cook County’s broad expanse, Bradley said.
Another consultant, Sam Morabito, a deputy engineer at the city’s Department of Aviation, focuses much of his work on the Northwest Side, where he lives, and often sticks to gathering signatures to qualify candidates a place on the ballot, according to past clients.
Morabito did not respond to requests for comment, but Diedre Baumann, an attorney who twice ran for judge, said Morabito helped her gather thousands of required petition signatures. She paid Morabito and his company, Campaign Advantage, nearly a combined $10,000 between 2009 and early 2012 for the two countywide elections, records show. She lost both races.
“Running for judge, you’re not a politician. I didn’t want to be a politician,” Baumann said. “So you have to rely on people who know better. It’s a very difficult job to try to do on your own. … Your family and your friends are the best people (to do this work). But you can only ask so much of those people.”
This story was reported in collaboration with Medill Watchdog, a project at Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism, and Chicago Tribune, with reporter Steve Mills contributing. Medill Watchdog can be found at medillwatchdog.org. 
 

Saturday, May 16, 2015

I am wondering if the First Amendment has been secretly abrogated?

I read the following article today.    If I had not been targeted to have my Civil Rights violated and had I not heard an IARDC attorney under the direction of Jerome Larkin (and the Illinois Supreme Court) ask me if I was repentant for my act of writing a letter to the Attorney General of the United States I might ignore the article; however, as I had to admit that I was not repentant and I still am not I have to give credibility to article, to wit:

CIA Officer Jeffrey Sterling Sentenced to Prison: The Latest Blow in the Government’s War on Journalism

It’s a warning shot—not only against whistleblowing but against basic communication with journalists by government employees.
May 12, 2015  

Sterling conviction
Former CIA officer Jeffrey Sterling with his wife after being convicted of leaking classified details to a New York Times reporter (AP Photo/Kevin Wolf)
The sentencing of former CIA officer Jeffrey Sterling on May 11 for espionage ends one phase of a long ordeal and begins another. At age 47, he has received a prison term of 42 months—three and a half years—after a series of ever more improbable milestones.
The youngest of six children raised by a single mother, Sterling was the only member of his family to go to college. He graduated from law school in 1993, worked briefly at a public defender’s office, and then entered the CIA, where he became one of the agency’s only African-American case officers. In August 2001, Sterling became the first one ever to file a lawsuit against the CIA for racial discrimination. (His suit, claiming that he was denied certain assignments because of his race, was ultimately tossed out of court on grounds that a trial would jeopardize government secrets.) Soon afterward, the agency fired him.
Sterling returned to his home state of Missouri and restarted his life. After struggling, he found a professional job and fell in love. But the good times were short-lived. One day in 2006, the FBI swooped in for a raid, seizing computers and papers at the small home that Sterling and his fiancĂ©e shared in a suburb of St. Louis. Slowly, during the next four years, without further action from the government, the menacing legal cloud seemed to disperse. But suddenly, a few days into 2011, Sterling was arrested for the first time in his life—charged with betraying his country.
The indictment included seven counts under the Espionage Act, the 1917 law that President Obama’s Justice Department has used to prosecute more whistleblowers than all other administrations combined. The key charges accused Sterling of “unauthorized disclosure of national defense information,” alleging that he gave details of a secret CIA operation to a journalist while falsely characterizing it in negative terms. The government contended that Sterling should remain in custody until trial because—with “underlying selfish and vindictive motivations”—he would try to “retaliate in the same deliberate, methodical, vindictive manner.” A judge rejected that argument and released him on bond. But Sterling’s arrest had triggered his immediate firing by Anthem Healthcare (where his work as a medical fraud investigator won a national award for uncovering $32 million in bogus charges), and suddenly even low-wage employment was out of reach. As a breadwinner, Sterling was toast. His wife, Holly, a social worker, continued to bring in a modest income as they waited for the trial.
The wait lasted four years. Most of the pre-trial legal maneuvers had to do with James Risen, theNew York Times reporter whose 2006 book, State of War, had spurred the FBI leak investigation that ended with Sterling’s arrest. The book included a chapter with classified information about Operation Merlin, a CIA program that in 2000 provided Iran with flawed design information for a nuclear weapon component. Despite subpoenas and jail threats, Risen kept refusing to identify any confidential source. The government prevailed on appeal with its claim that journalists have no right to such a refusal, but—after growing pushback from press-freedom advocates and worsening optics in the court of public opinion—the Justice Department finally gave up on forcing Risen to cooperate. (For background, see Norman Solomon and Marcy Wheeler, “The Government War Against Reporter James Risen,” October 8, 2014.)
The federal courtroom in northern Virginia where Holly and Jeffrey Sterling returned for the sentencing on May 11 was the scene of a disturbing, though scantly reported, simulation of justice in late January. At the outset, covering the trial, I noted that “prospective jurors made routine references to ‘three-letter agencies’ and alphabet-soup categories of security clearances.” Steeped in a local atmosphere of deference to mega-employers like the CIA and Pentagon along with numerous big contracting firms nearby, “the jury pool was bound to please the prosecution.”
* * *
In the government’s opening statement, head prosecutor James Trump told jurors that Sterling had committed crimes of betrayal due to his “anger, bitterness, selfishness”—a theme and theory of the case that the Obama Justice Department was to reprise often with its mosaic of CIA testimony and its boffo PowerPoint closing argument: claiming that Sterling became vengeful against the agency when he failed to win his legal complaint against it for racial discrimination. The prosecution was gratified two weeks later when the nearly all-white jury, which included no African-Americans, voted guilty on all counts.
Few news reports about the verdict provided any context, but that was true of the entire trial’s overall sparse coverage. During the seven days of proceedings, I rarely saw more than five other journalists in the courtroom. But the trial for United States of America v. Jeffrey Alexander Sterling was extraordinary, for reasons far beyond the fact that it was the first time a jury considered Espionage Act charges that a CIA employee had leaked classified information to news media.
During the first half of the trial, the prosecution was often fixated on insisting that Operation Merlin was a nearly perfect program implemented by a nearly perfect agency. The government condemned Sterling for having a very bad attitude in addition to doing a very bad thing. Hour after hour, he stood accused of wrongly disparaging the CIA’s ĂĽber-wise competence—legally to Senate Intelligence Committee staffers, and then illegally to the world, via Risen.
A cast of twenty-three CIA witnesses played their “national security” roles as agents of patriotic virtue. And Condoleezza Rice did a dramatic star turn (the press showed up for that one). Rice testified to the great importance of Operation Merlin, explaining that she carefully stuck to the talking points provided to her by the CIA when, as President George W. Bush’s national security adviser, she hosted a meeting with Times reporter Risen and Washington bureau chief Jill Abramson—an intervention by the White House that succeeded in keeping the scoop out of the newspaper (and away from the public, until Risen’s book came out more than two and a half years later). The meeting took place at the end of April 2003, just a few weeks after the invasion of Iraq.
During a trial that revolved around Washington spin about specters of nuclear weapons in the Middle East, the government was able to shield the CIA and the former secretary of state from scrutiny, even though—and precisely because—testimony in the courtroom could have illuminated their actual records of crying nuclear wolf while laying the groundwork for war. During cross examination, the government was able to nip in the bud an effort by defense lawyer Barry Pollack to provide the jury with some key background on the Bush administration that Rice served:
Q: [P]reventing working nuclear weapons from falling into the hands of rogue states is one of the most important missions of your, the administration you worked for certainly—
Rice: Yes.
Q:—and any other administration, correct?
Rice: That’s correct.
Q: And certainly counter proliferation was of great interest at this particular time, correct?
Rice: That’s correct.
Q: The United States had invaded Iraq the earlier month?
Prosecutor Eric Olshan: Objection.
Judge Leonie Brinkema: Well, we’ve heard that before. Let’s just move this along, Mr. Pollack. Sustained.
And so it went, during a trial that alternately expanded and contracted its purview to accommodate prosecution needs. The scope went global, to vaguely yet emphatically assert vast harm from Sterling’s alleged disclosures. Yet it narrowed to tunnel vision whenever convenient to exclude information that could explain why anyone might not defer to the judgments of an agency that had skewed its intelligence for war, or might doubt the credibility of a former Bush national security adviser who had called for the invasion of Iraq while warning, “We don’t want the smoking gun to become a mushroom cloud.”
On the trial’s last day—in the same closing argument that insisted “this case is not about politics” and “it’s not about salvaging the reputation of the CIA”—the prosecution began with a quote from Rice about the US government’s grave responsibility to prevent nuclear proliferation. Three months later, in late April, the Justice Department filed a 24-page sentencing memo that began with a bold-italics quote from Rice’s testimony: “I was deeply concerned because this was not just a sensitive program, but it was one of the only levers that we believed we had, that the President had, to try to disrupt the Iranian nuclear program.”
Rice’s superstar appearance was in sync with what one attorney called the “hocus pocus” of the trial, complete with a tall office divider that kept many of the CIA witnesses screened off from public view. For no evident reason other than to impress jurors with the sanctity and gravity of classification, the prosecution distributed to the jury a file stamped “SECRET” in big letters across the front, before the judge ordered a bailiff to take the file back only minutes later. The heavy-handed message was that top officials who knew best were operating with the kind of essential secrecy that the defendant had dangerously breached.
In a trial with twists and shadowy subplots that seemed countless, two aspects—nearly hidden in plain sight—are among those in greatest need of scrutiny. What passed for incriminating proof amounted to nothing more than circumstantial evidence in the form of metadata about e-mails and phone calls. And the government won guilty verdicts for some of the Espionage Act charges on the mere basis that Sterling “did willfully cause” Risen to disclose classified information. In effect, the cumulative ambiance in the courtroom was white noise in the service of a prosecution that not only arranged a crescendo of circumstantial evidence but also of circumstantial allegations. The government impugned Sterling’s motives and character while encouraging the jurors to assume that he would have tried to steer Risen toward classified information—despite the complete absence of evidence that the defendant had actually given him any. The circumstantial evidence, implying that Sterling had “caused” the release of such information, was enough. (Disclosure: After the guilty verdict, I used my frequent-flier miles to get plane tickets for Holly and Jeffrey Sterling so they would be able to go home to St. Louis.)
* * *
The successful prosecution of Jeffrey Sterling has given more leverage to the information clampdown that the Obama administration continues to implement. With a multi-count Espionage Act conviction, it serves as yet another warning shot—not only against whistleblowing and disclosure of classified information, but also against basic communication with journalists by government employees and contractors.
Over decades, while interviewing sources with security clearances, hundreds of journalists have had the experience of asking questions and receiving a reply along the lines of: I can’t tell you the answer because it’s classified, but I can tell you (fill in the blank). Such responses mean that sources can be helpful to a reporter’s investigative process without disclosing any classified information. But one of the evident aims of the Sterling prosecution was to strengthen government efforts to choke off such communications. The not-so-subtle gist: Telling a journalist anything that might lead to coverage of classified information could be a basis for prosecution and conviction. The Sterling case stands as a calculated warning to government employees that Espionage Act charges could result from assisting any journalist for a story that might wind up reporting classified information.
Such legal constructions fit tongue-in-groove with the agenda of the intelligence hierarchy under Obama. For years now, the administration’s “Insider Threat” program has formally encouraged millions of government employees to monitor each other for—and report on—signs of ideological or attitudinal deviance. An order from National Intelligence Director James Clapper warned employees of all intelligence agencies not to give any journalist non-classified information without first getting authorization. Such measures are part of a calculated progression that aims—via bureaucratic edicts as well as legal harassment and criminal prosecutions—to normalize an atmosphere of fear and reflexive self-constraint, blocking the unauthorized delivery of information to the public.
For prospective whistleblowers, the Sterling case is yet more proof that they can “go through channels” to express concerns only at their peril. Particularly in security-state realms—as the experiences of NSA whistleblowers William Binney, Thomas Drake, Edward Loomis and Kirk Wiebe have shown—using the much-ballyhooed official channels to report concerns is a flag that draws official retribution. During Sterling’s trial, the prosecution repeatedly used against him—as supposed indications of hostility toward the agency and motive for wrongdoing—the fact that he had gone through legal channels to file suit alleging racial bias and to report his concerns about Operation Merlin to Senate Intelligence Committee staffers.
* * *
While defending the rights of journalists, some press-freedom advocates haven’t seemed to mind much when a whistleblower goes to prison. Others, even more disturbingly, seemed to express satisfaction at the Sterling verdict, as proof that the government had been wrong in its claims in prior years that it needed Risen’s testimony to gain a conviction. This theme was sounded by Attorney General Eric Holder right after Sterling’s conviction, when he issued a statement that crowed: “As this verdict proves, it is possible to fully prosecute unauthorized disclosures that inflict harm upon our national security without interfering with journalists’ ability to do their jobs.” This attitude is a wedge being driven between journalists and whistleblowers—shorn of euphemisms, it often amounts to journalists good, whistleblowers not. But to support journalists and not the whistleblowers who provide them with information is akin to cheering only the last baton-holder in a relay race.
In an essay that went to press while the Sterling trial was under way, veteran journalist Steve Coll explained that “the Obama administration’s resort to the draconian provisions of the Espionage Act against Sterling was just one case in a series of overreaching prosecutions of journalistic sources carried out by Eric Holder’s Justice Department.” Coll added: “In more than one instance, the Justice Department took positions that came close to criminalizing the act of professional reporting on classified subjects. In a pretrial filing in the Sterling matter, for example, prosecutors in the US Attorney’s office for the Eastern District of Virginia argued vehemently that Risen was an important eyewitness to a felony because the reporter had allegedly interviewed Sterling, who had given him classified information.”
Supporters of press freedom who denounce the government’s threats against journalists should fight just as hard against efforts to imprison the whistleblowers whom journalists depend on—that, after all, is how the flow of vital information reaches the public. But so far, overall, the media establishment has failed to defend the whistleblowers who make possible the “professional reporting on classified subjects.”
The Justice Department’s legal siege of Sterling, which has spanned two administrations and 10 years, can be understood as part of a regimen that winks and nods, or wrist-slaps, when classified information is leaked from on high—often to manipulate public opinion—while fiercely prosecuting alleged leakers who expose government officials or policies as inept, destructive or mendacious. The Senate Intelligence Committee’s recent report on torture documented that the CIA press office itself gave classified material to favorite journalists to make the agency look good. Even when major leaks from powerful officials are unauthorized, the penalties are nonexistent or tiny—as exemplified by the April 23 sentencing of former CIA Director David Petraeus, who gave briefing books with highly classified information to his journalist paramour and then lied to the FBI about it. Petraeus received no jail time after a cozy plea deal with the Justice Department. The same Justice Department declared that an appropriate prison sentence for Sterling would be in a range of 19-24 years.
There was grim symbolism in the eleventh-hour postponement of Sterling’s sentencing until May 11, rather than the long-scheduled date of April 24. The original date—just one day after Petraeus’s sentencing—would have provided an especially stark contrast.
The Petraeus plea deal has provoked criticism and even outrage from some newspaper editorial boards. In an understated editorial titled “Gen. Petraeus’s Light Punishment,” The New York Times observed that “top officials, who often seek to advance self-serving political agendas in their dealings with the press, appear to enjoy significant leeway in disclosing classified information”—while, “in sharp contrast, the government has been unsparing in its prosecution of lower­ ranking officials who have shared sensitive information for more defensible reasons.” The Los Angeles Times editorialized that “the whiff of a double standard is overwhelming” and concluded, “That may be the way of the world, but it’s not justice.”
A more caustic response came from New Jersey’s largest newspaper, the Star-Ledger, under a headline that summarized the status quo this way: “Whistleblowers wacked, all-star generals walk.” Noting the sweet deal that Obama’s Justice Department had gifted to Petraeus, the Star-Ledger editorial said: “What makes it galling is how Petraeus compares to men like Jeffrey Sterling, who was convicted by a jury for being the main source of James Risen’s book about a CIA op designed to sabotage Iran’s nuclear program. There were nearly 100 people who could have been the source, but Sterling was convicted on circumstantial evidence because the DOJ likes to go after whistleblowers.”
Such clarity from big media remains unusual. But similar assessments are becoming more frequent and vehement—as more people recognize the grim injustices for whistleblowers and the dire consequences for democracy.
Amid all the convoluted doublespeak from the Obama administration, Jeffrey Sterling is paying a tragic price.
 

Thursday, November 6, 2014

US Moves to Crush Internal Dissent

US Moves to Crush Internal Dissent

Column: Society
old_man_usaIn yet another legal maneuver to shut down dissent, the attorney disciplinary board in the State of Illinois has suspended Chicago-based activist attorney Kenneth Ditkowsky’s license to practice law for four years, following a hearing where Ditkowsky’s right to speak out against corruption in the courts featured center-stage.
Ditkowsky, who has been practicing law since the early 1960’s, came to public attention after he became outspoken against what he calls “elder cleansing,” which is  taking place in guardianship programs in courts throughout the United States. Ditkowsky has been sending emails to public officials, including Attorney General Eric Holder and US Senator Matt Kirk on a regular basis, asking for an “honest and complete investigation” of reported abuses going on under the mantle of adult guardianships.
Ditkowsky has defined “elder cleansing” as a three step process: First, a court must assert its dominion over an elder person’s life and assets by appointing a guardian. Ditkowsky has detailed instances, such as in the Mary Sykes guardianship, where legal process was not adhered to. Second, the elder is systematically isolated from concerned family and friends and his assets pilfered by the very guardian who is in place to conserve the estate. The final stage of elder cleansing, according to Ditkowsky, occurs when the elder, now isolated and placed into a facility, is drugged to death.
Ditkowsky was placed under disciplinary proceedings by the IARDC (Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission), after his repeated allegations of attorney and judicial misconduct in the guardianship of Mary G. Sykes, Alice Gore and others began to apparently become an irritant. At one point, Ditkowsky was asked by IARDC attorney Leah Black if he were not “sorry” for his emails asking for an investigation into these cases.
Mary G. Sykes has been isolated from family and friends for several years. A number of valuable assets, including old gold and silver coins, have reportedly disappeared during the tenure of the guardianship. In another guardianship matter, Alice Gore had her teeth mined for gold fillings, which were removed on order of the guardian.
Ditkowsky has pledged to continue on the fight against elder cleansing. In another one of his widely disseminated emails following his receipt of notice of suspension from the practice of law, Ditkowsky stated the following…. 
“henceforth my full time efforts will be directed toward the fight to prevent ‘elder cleansing’ and the WAR AGAINST THE ELDERLY AND THE DISABLED  that our miscreant abusive guardians and those who work in concert with them – i.e.  the political royals, Jerome Larkin and the IARDC, etc.     The Supreme Court of Illinois affirmed the IARDC and ruled that the First Amendment to the Illinois Constitution has been abrogated.”   
The State of Illinois appears to have adopted a “take no prisoners” policy against dissident attorneys. However, the very  IARDC attorneys who prosecuted Ditkowsky’s license have failed to file their mandated financial disclosure forms. These forms are to be filed to ensure that those in government are not receiving bribes and payoffs in return for their official duties. In other words, the law of the State of Illinois apparently does not apply to those working for government.
In concert with another Illinois attorney, JoAnne Denison, Ken Ditkowsky has filed a civil rights lawsuit in federal court, alleging that his First Amendment rights have been breached. JoAnne Denison is also on trial for her bar license for the act of running a blog—marygsykes.com– which is critical of judges and other legal professionals as relates to the practice of elder law and guardianship.
Ken Ditkowsky’s writings have been regularly featured on Denison’s blog. Denison has also filed a copyright infringement suit, based on what she alleges to be improper dominion by the IARDC over the blog.
At stake here is more than the individual careers of a couple of attorneys. When individuals are censured for what is considered to be Constitutionally protected speech, the public at large suffers, as well. Writes JoAnne Denison,
“As you are aware, the greatest weapons in this country counter to a dictatorship and tyranny are undoubtedly the right to petition freely and openly our government for redress, and when that fails, our right to take unresolved grievances to be aired in the media.
In one fell swoop, the IARDC takes away these rights.
As attorneys, we cannot call a spade a spade, a pig with lipstick becomes a lady, and words such as “corrupt”, “tortfeasor”, civil and human rights violations, theft, conversion, embezzlement, false imprisonment are  swiftly taken away from our blogs, then the public is not warned.”
At the time of going to press, blogger Roger Shuler  has been sitting in jail for five months in Alabama, due to a “prior restraint”issue.  Moveon.org is being sued by the Governor of Louisianna, Bobby Jindal, for a billboard which states that Jindal’s acts as Governor resulted in the denial of Medicaid coverage for 242,000 people. Yet another arrest warrant has been issued for an outspoken probate court victim, this time out in Logan County, Ohio. The arrest warrant for Rosanna Miller is for failure to pay a couple of grand in court costs. However, the law prohibits jailing someone for a debt in Ohio. 
A large reaper appears to be at play, cutting down and silencing activists, attorneys and non- attorneys alike. Anyone who speaks out appears to be at risk. The use of the legal system as an instrument of (domestic) war has resulted in the coining of a new word, “lawfare,” which aptly describes the sorts of assaults on rights and freedoms such as noted herein.
As summed up by Ken Ditkowsky, “According to our brethren who regulate Attorney conduct noticing the ‘elder cleansing’ is unethical, and if you speak concerning it you are a danger to the profession and you will be suspended or disbarred.”  
And in an impassioned moment, JoAnne Denison writes comparing the guardianship programs with the T-4 program in Hitler’s Germany:
“It was not until late in the T4 program and by then the concentration camp program that a German Cardinal finally read aloud a letter protesting forced euthanasia and reaffirming the sanctity of life that protests began among German catholics and the letter was read aloud in all the German churches eventually and protests in German started to take off.  But by then it was simply too late.  A deeply entrenched machine had already flourished for years. Jews and other undesireables were already being sent to their deaths by the bus loads. 
Only the end of the war would stop this machine.
So I stand here today and I will trash my law license so that this T4 program with grandma and grandpa will go no further. Many have gone to the ARDC, the federal and state authorities with credible cases and plenty of evidence and were completely ignored.  T4 was implemented, condoned and covered up by attorneys in the Drabik and Gore cases.  Remember, T4 started with infants.  Our seniors are just as vulnerable.
Just say NO to T4 in the US.  Say NO to involuntary euthanasia for elders. Say NO to elder cleansing and elder trafficking.  Whatever you call it, it’s just plain wrong and people, and especially attorneys must blog and must protest.
Neither Jim Grogan, the press spokesman for the IARDC, nor Jim Tyrbor, press contact for the Illinois Supreme Court, responded to queries from this reporter as to why the ARDC attorneys had not filed their financial disclosure forms.
Janet C. Phelan, investigative journalist and human rights defender that has traveled pretty extensively over the Asian region, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
First appeared:US Moves to Crush Internal Dissent | New Eastern Outlook
 
 
image
 
 
 
 
 
US Moves to Crush Internal Dissent | New Eastern Outlook
In yet another legal maneuver to shut down dissent, the attorney disciplinary board in the State of Illinois has suspended Chicago-based activist attorney Kenneth D...
Preview by Yahoo
 
 

Tuesday, June 25, 2013

Illinois judges seeking assistance at faster pace

Illinois judges seeking assistance at faster pace


2013-06-16T00:30:00Z Illinois judges seeking assistance at faster paceKurt Erickson Times Bureau The Quad-City Times
June 16, 2013 12:30 am  • 
SPRINGFIELD — The cocaine-induced death of a downstate Illinois judge in March and the arrest last month of a colleague on drug-related charges comes at a time when more attorneys than ever are seeking help for mental health issues and addiction problems.
According to the most recent annual report of the Illinois Lawyers Assistance Program, which helps find treatment for attorneys, 299 new cases were opened during the most recent fiscal year, the most of any time in the agency's 32-year history.
Janet Piper Voss, executive director of the assistance program, attributes the increase to a rise in awareness of the program and an acceptance that treatment is a better option than hiding problems.
But, she said, judges often are a different breed.
"They are very concerned about letting anyone know there is a problem," Voss said. "And they tend to be more isolated in their work setting."
Joe Christ, 49, had been an associate judge in St. Clair County for less than a month before he died of a cocaine overdose in March. The Illinois State University graduate was a county prosecutor for nearly two decades before his elevation to the bench.
Christ's body was recovered at a hunting lodge in Pike County owned by the parents of St. Clair County Circuit Judge Michael Cook, 45, who has since been charged with possessing a weapon while using a controlled substance and misdemeanor possession of heroin.
According to a review of disciplinary action against judges at the Illinois Judicial Inquiry Board, the behavior of the two men would be considered among the most egregious when compared to cases going back for decades.
Since 1973, there have been 82 cases filed against wayward judges by the inquiry board.
Of them, only one other judge was connected to a drug-related crime.
In October 1996, Cook County Associate Judge Frank Edwards was nabbed for transporting marijuana at an airport in Belize.
A review of inquiry board documents shows 12 judges have been penalized over the past 40 years for allegations of alcohol abuse. Of those, cases against five judges were filed in the past decade.
Other inquiry board findings center on issues ranging from the attempted use of judicial clout to the mistreatment of people in their courtrooms.
In 2006, for example, the board opened an inquiry into Logan County Associate Judge Donald Behle, who was accused of having dated a woman while presiding over her divorce and child custody case. He also faced an allegation that he contacted a witness in a case in which he was the presiding judge.
The case was closed in 2007 after Behle resigned from office.
Among the highest-profile cases of the inquiry board was the 1997 censure of James Heiple, the chief justice of the Illinois Supreme Court.
Heiple was accused of trying to use his position to keep from being charged with a traffic violation.
But those cases affected judges who remained in office after they were investigated.
Once a judge leaves office, the inquiry board loses jurisdiction over the case. That means a judge accused of a drug-related crime might not be investigated by board.
"There could be others because they left (the job,)" said Kathy Twine, executive director of the Judicial Inquiry Board.
Former Sangamon County Associate Judge Philip Schickendanz serves as an example. He resigned in 1990 after being convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol and cocaine possession.
He eventually was stripped of his law license by a separate agency, the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission.
In 2012, the ARDC reported that it rendered discipline against 23 attorneys for drug-related problems or mental health issues. None of them was a judge.
The Illinois Lawyers Assistance Program reported that of the nearly 300 cases opened last year, only nine were judges.
Although it is not known why they sought treatment, the program notes that alcohol-related cases account for 83 percent of the referrals. Cocaine represented just 6 percent of the cases.
Former Illinois Appellate Court Justice Warren Wolfson, who now teaches at the DePaul University College of Law, said it can be difficult for judges to seek help.
"A lot of them are very reluctant to come forward voluntarily. But we don't have to have them come voluntarily if somebody would come forward who knows about it," said Wolfson, who sits on the board of directors of the lawyers assistance program.
"Usually, it's going to take some intervention for them to seek treatment," Wolfson said. "Most of them have been successful."
Nationally, the number of judges removed from office remains relatively low.
The American Judicature Society's Center for Judicial Ethics said 13 judges were removed from office in 2012 as a result of state disciplinary proceedings.
The center also found 24 judges resigned or retired in lieu of discipline and agreed not to serve in judicial office again.