Every litigant has heard of the ‘wired case’ and has a deep fear that his/her opponent has an unauthorized advantage. In my early days in the practice of law the relationship between the lawyers and the judge was casual and more academic. In a case that I was involved in (in Kane County) the judge had coffee and sweet rolls in his chambers on mornings he entertained a motion call. It was the custom to arrive about 9:00 A.M. go directly to chambers, have a cup of coffee with the “boys” and at 9:30 the Judge would say: “OK, let’s go to work.”
We did. Lawyers presented their motions and without hesitation the Judge ruled. At 10:00 the scheduled trials began. The issues had been pared and therefore the trial was relatively short. At the lunch break it was not uncommon for all the lawyers involved in the trial and the judge to go together to eat. We were all friends. Each of us represented our clients’ interest as if it was our own. We had disagreements, but were not disagreeable.
It was years before I realized the anxiety that the client had when he saw his lawyer and the opponent’s lawyer sharing a ride or eating meals together with the judge. Clients were aware that we did not share their dislike for the opposition lawyer and were terrified that we were selling them out. We were not selling anyone or anything out, we were taking advantage of friendship to narrow the issues and eliminate the issues that we agreed upon. As an example, it would be my duty to inform Mr. Waller that his Petition for a guardianship (filed for his client) failed to name Mary Sykes’ two living siblings. It would also be my obligation as Waller’s friend to point out the fact that neither sister nor the younger daughter was given the jurisdictional 14 days prior notice.
[2]
When the lawyer on the other side of a case was hostile it was a clear sign that either he did not understand the process, or had something else going. The red flags went up! Unfortunately, hostility was not a sure fire determinate of a ‘wired case.’ There were fixer firms operating. These firms regularly plied the receptive judges with unauthorized remuneration. All the practicing members of the bar knew who these firms were and regularly informed their clients of the problem. Of course there were judges who had particular bias, but here again we knew who they were. The big distinction was that we recognized the problem. We dealt with this problem because to my opponent might have me behind the eight ball – but tomorrow I might have him in the same position. Therefore, it is in both our best interests to co-operate so that our clients obtained a proper and fair result.
By 1970 the ‘code’ was disappearing and a new breed of lawyers was showing his/her ugly face on the horizon. The new breed of lawyers is described in the
Denison decision and in previous e-mails I forwarded to you. The new lawyer’s code eliminated the desire to address the dispute and be satisfied with a job well down. The new code appeared to present the proposition of redistributing the client’s wealth from the client’s pocket to his/her lawyer. The legal profession’s reputation was soiled as the public recognized that this new lawyer was more venal and resisted the idea of not litigating the facts and the law that all reasonable people agreed upon. This lawyer had no problem in using clout to accomplish something he/she knew was not appropriate.
[3] The
Denison decision points out as example that Schmiedel claims $200,000 as fees due him. It ignores the fact if he had allowed Mary Sykes to have a lawyer at a fair and impartial hearing his fees would have been only a few dollars. As the Court lacked jurisdiction and ignored the Petition filed by Mary for a protective order his entire presence in the
Sykes case is illegitimate. Indeed, had Stern, Farenga, Schmiedel and the presiding judges taken 755 IlCS 5/11a -3b seriously these proceedings would never have occurred, there were be no guardianship, and no attorney fees or guardianship fees charged.
[4] Attorney fees are not a matter of right!
In an analogous manner the limitations required by the
Americans with Disabilities Act have been and are routinely ignored by the protected attorneys and certainly by the ‘wired’ panel of the IARDC. There is no question that the lawyers on the panel were aware that guardianship is limited by Title 2 of the act and in particular to the requirement of a reasonable accommodation.
[5] (Thus why did they ignore it?) These lawyers on the panel were and are aware that a reasonable accommodation
is not the isolation of a disabled person so that he/she can be railroaded into an un-necessary guardianship so that she can be deprived of her liberty, have her property disappear, and ultimately be subjected to gross indignity. Indeed, it is the rule that attorney fees be reasonable and necessary and do benefit to the estate. The new breed of lawyer
who enjoys the protection of Mr. Larkin and the IARDC is blind deaf and dumb as to disabled clients entitled to ADA protection
[6].
The
Alice Gore case (prospecting for gold in the mouth of Ms. Gore and harvesting of the same) is one example of the new type lawyers (and Judges) that appeared on the scene in the 1970’s. The
Sykes case is another example. There are many others across the United States and disclosed by various blogs other than Ms. Denison’s. The Government Accounting Office even reported some of the cases to the Congress.
[7]
As the older lawyers and judges died out or retired the joy and the professionalism became much rarer. The courtroom became more of a battleground and display of wits, rather than a discussion of legal principles and ways to address problems. The Black Panther case was an example of a ‘wired case.’ Therein, the corrupt judge recognized that the police raid was absolutely improper and the killing of an individual (who was admittedly a terrible person) was a “hit.” It was also clear that the State of Illinois was dead wrong; however, the Judge was hell bent on finding for the State. Thus, the judge leaned all the way over to grant just about every whim that the plaintiffs made known. The defense could not win a motion for a continuance. After the plaintiff had rested the judge granted the defense’s Motion for a Finding, and directed a verdict.
The Judge had protected his record! The appeal was costly! Except for some special circumstances 99% of the litigants could not afford it and the fix was successful. A trier of facts has complete power to determine the credibility of witnesses and it is rare that an appellate court will overturn him. Thus, a foolproof scenario is complete. Transcripts of proceedings are expensive and for most litigants their cost places the litigation out of reach. Thus, the losing litigant has no further remedy.
The Denison decision is a horse of a different stripe. The panel was so wired that not only was Ms. Denison denied the lawyer of her choice, but, had the attorney for the IARDC wanted Ms. Denison to be dressed in red, it was a sure fire cinch that the panel chairman would have entered such an order. The decision makes it very clear that Denison had no hope of a fair hearing must less a fair decision. In my case, the panel openly admitted in an order to an ex-parte communication. In the Denisoncase, a sitting judge openly perjured herself on the stand. She was subsequently forced to resign from the bench; however, the panel ignored this outrage that occurred right in their presence. Judicial corruption occurred right in the hearing home of the trier of fact and so biased was the trier of fact that it ignored it!!!
An examination of the decision confirms that the proceedings were something out of Alice in Wonderland. Please allow me to explain:
1) No matter how you slice it, the averments concerning Ms. Denison are that she authored a blog and that the statements therein were untrue.
2) Ms. Denison’s blog is not even alleged to be a commercial operation, but merely the recitation of content related material. As content related material the first issue that has to be addressed is whether or not the IARDC can regulate it. Alvarez 183 LED 2d 574, Brown 131 S. Ct 2729, Ashcroft 542 US 656, Snyder 131 S. Ct 1207, Citizens United 558 US 310k, McCutcheon 2014 WL 1301866 and Peel vs. the IARDC 496 US 91 all point out that content related utterance cannot be regulated even to the extent of determining if the statements are true. In re Sawyer 360 US 622, and Gentile 501 US 1030 all make it abundantly clear that the First Amendment protects apply to lawyers as well as all other citizens.
3)
The Blog is protected by 47 USCA 230, and the subject matter protected even from disciplinary proceedings by 340 ILCS 20/4. The action of Mr. Larkin is abhorred by 735 ILCS 110/5 as the legislature of the State of Illinois announced its policy.
[8]
This subject matter (of the right to rule on an issue) is not addressed by the decision even though it is basic and the first question to be addressed. By not addressed I mean that if you examine the opinion for any cogent argument discussing the First Amendment protections being applicable you will find none. In fact there is no intelligent discussion of the distinction between commercial and private communications or any discussion of any distinction between lawyers and other citizens etc. The ‘wired’ panel points out that it does not want to be confused by the fact or the law. It does not desire to discuss anything of substance. The First rule of the Rule of Law is respect for the civil rights and immunities of all citizens without regard for race, creed, profession, religion *****. It is respectfully submitted that the reason that there was no discussion of the Constitutional liberties to which Ms. Denison is absolutely entitled is the fact that the IARDC commission was ‘wired’ to decide against Ms. Denison in the very same manner that they were wired to decide against myself and Mr. Amu. (In my opinion the Amu decision goes a step further and demonstrates an illegal racial nexus.
Assuming that last night we woke up in North Korea and our Constitution had been abrogated. Even without the Constitutional protections section 47 USCA 230 and 340 ILCS 20/4 prohibit these disciplinary proceedings against Ms. Denison or any other lawyer. The foregoing notwithstanding the IARDC commission ignores all statutes which bar their action. 47 USCA 230 and 340 ILCS 20/4 are no exceptions. The decision is silent as to how the commission is justified in ignoring not only the state standard but the Federal as well. Larkin and his cohorts do not suggest that these statutes are not applicable – they just ignore any law that might interfere with the lynching.
The trier of fact has a right to be wrong and even stupid; however, a trier of fact has a duty to uphold the Constitution and the Rule of Law. This
Denison case is a ‘wired’ case and admitted to be such as Larkin et al make no effort to even justify their (i.e. the panel, the commission et al) ignoring the Citizen protections due Ms. Denison.
[9]
However, there is more.
To be wired a case need only have one scenario in which there is not a level playing field. This Dension case is instructive as there are three separate areas in which the case abhors the concept of justice and fairness. The factual proof is particularly troubling as it reflects corruption that is so common and so difficult to address.
Larkin has the burden of proof. By burden of proof I mean he has to prove each and every element of his assertions by clear and convincing evidence.
If Larkin has done so that decision can list as an example each statement that was proven false. No statements are delineated. Once Larkin has disclosed the statements that he claims are false he then has to present competent evidence of each statement’s falsity.
Competent evidence is evidence not conjecture, supposition, or conclusions. For instance, in the
Gore case it has been pointed out that Alice Gore’s mouth was prospected for gold and 29 teeth were harvested and not one was disclosed an inventory. Larkin must prove that this did not occur. His burden is difficult as the corpse of Alice Gore had 29 teeth missing from it!
[10]
The Sykes case 09 P 4585 (Circuit Court of Cook County) is also replete with irregularities. Larkin appears to allege and his cronies affirm that Mary Sykes did not have any gold in her safety deposit box to be stolen. The decision and the proof however do not address the issue. There is no specific statement in the opinion or anywhere else that can be tortured to suggest that any witness or any document provided a scintilla of evidence that Mary’s safety deposit box did not have all the gold that Gloria Sykes’ affidavit claimed. For instance: Larkin did not provide an inventory maintained in the ordinary course of business as to what the contents of the safety deposit box were. Larkin did not produce Mary Sykes to testify as to the contents of the safety deposit box, nor did he tender the guardian who admittedly garnered the contents of the safety deposit box. The guardian did not deny that she moved over a million dollars in gold coins from the safety deposit box! No evidence, except in a ‘wire case’ is not sufficient proof to prove any proposition.
How then is this fact (i.e. the gold in the safety deposit box) proven untrue? Larkin knows or should know that Gloria Sykes was a co—owner of the safety deposit box. Search the record in the Denison case. You will find no testimony of Sykes to back up Larkin’s assertion. In fact, there is not a scintilla of evidence that this statement or any other statement made in the blog, or made by any other person as to the corruption of Stern, Farenga, Schmiedel, the guardian, or the Judge is false. You will however find that Judge Stuart first denied chaining Ms. Sykes in Stuart’s courtroom and then pointing out that she only did this once.
[11] You also find that Judge Stuart resigned shortly after Ms. Denison raised the issue as to possible perjury by Judge Stuart. The answer to the question – as the panel was pre=disposed to find Denison guilty of something no proof was required except that Dension complied with 18 USCA 4 and she therefore causes inconvenience to the miscreants that Larkin was aiding and abetting.
An analysis of each assertion by Larkin meets a similar scenario. The facts have been determine ex-parte by the panel and proof is not required of Larkin. Any proof presented by Denison is dismissed as not relevant. Such is the definition of a ‘wired proceeding.’
What is so serious in these ‘wired proceedings’ is the fact that Denison can expect, just as both Amu and I learned that the review panel and the Illinois Supreme Court will affirm. The facts do not matter! This is the typical rape situation – Larkin gives the advice of just lie down and enjoy no one cares about the indignity that is being afford you.
I’ve written to the Justice Department and in particular Mr. Holder. I did so because Mr. Holder against all odds and his own well-being is reported to be the guiding angel behind the prosecution during President Clinton’s era the highest ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives, Daniel Rostenkowski. Representative Rostenkowski committed a criminal act and Mr. Holder would not look the other way. Mr. Holder did this against the advice of just about everyone and because he has integrity and I for one am grateful and hopeful that Mr. Larkin will also receive justice.
[1] A wired case is one in which because of clout, politics, or dishonesty one of the parties is not going to enjoy a level playing field and is predetermined to obtain an adverse decision. The decision that was handed down in the
Denison case, the
Amu case, my case and a bunch of similar cases are all submitted as wired.
[2]The summons required to be served on Mary pursuant to 755 ILCS 5/11a – 10 was not available in the Clerk’s office. Thus in prior years, both Waller and I would go to the clerk’s office with a grievance and together we would draft the proper document. Schmediel upon entry into the case would check to ascertain if jurisdiction had been properly obtained as it is in the interests of both parties to a dispute to see that the boiler plate is present.
[3][3] Of course we had dishonest judges. Some of the most venal were worse than exist today; however, the lawyers who regularly went to Court knew who they were and avoid them like the plague. When a corrupt judge could not be avoided we did what we called: “try the case for Appeal.” This procedure was more cumbersome but it had to be done. The fixer lawyer was not happy as he now had to work and he had to deal with unpleasantness. For me it was an outlet for me to address my aggressions in a socially acceptable manner. Instead of fighting with my wife, it would give me an opportunity to express whatever anger that I harbored with letters, motions, and in some cases practical jokes.
[4] Of course Larkin and the Denison decision is silent as to the fact that there was an obvious cover-up in which two guardian ad litem participated. This cover up included but was not limited to filing intimidate proceedings in the form of Rule 137 motion (false pleadings) knowing that no pleadings had been filed and no jurisdiction had been obtained. Larkin and IARDC do not seek to obtain for the Mary Sykes estate for these obviously improper charged by Stern, Schmiedel et al. What is particularly interesting is the fact that the
Denison opinion suggests that the over-charges by Stern, Farenga, and Schmiedel were due to the 18 USCA 4 reports to law enforcement by concerned citizens. The opinion never explains how the requirements of Federal law are not applicable to felonies committed by the corrupt judicial officials and their appointees (including the appointee’s attorneys).
[5] Guardianship is also limited by 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3.
[6] The
Americans with Disabilities Act outlaws the very retaliation that is occurring in the ‘wired proceeding.’ Larkin and his cronies on the IARDC panel are aware of this however, they feel that they are immune to the protections of law. It is for this reason that these matters are published on the various blogs and reported pursuant to 18 USCA 4 to Law Enforcement.
[7] Why is Ms. Denison singled out? Many other blogs have been raising a hue and cry concerning this scandal? How does Mr. Larkin and the IARDC justify the discrimination? It is suggested that there is substantial corruption within the judicial community and in particular the IARDC. 18 USCA 371 appears to give a substantial insight into this situation.
[8] It should be noted that the Commission is required to prove their claim by
clear and convincing evidence. Clear and convincing evidence is not false conclusions by the two guardian ad litem and the attorney for the petitioner. The standard is more that whether or not the guardians are credible (as the decision points out to be its standard). Clear and convincing is something almost akin to the criminal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt.
[9] This
Denison case exemplifies a common pattern that is followed in the
Amu case and also in my case. In my case in Discovery Larkin admitted that he had no information as to what statements were false etc. I had offended the Devine right of the IARDC by my inquiry pursuant to Rule 137 and my letter to Attorney General Holder pursuant to 18 USCA 4 complaining of the violation of Mary Sykes’ civil and human rights. Mr. Amu’s offense was that he has a dark hue to his skin.
[10] When family members of Gore complained of the National Socialist guardianship of their loved one Larkin reported to them the guardians (including the GAL who orchestrated the events) had not been guilty of any ethical violation. Larkin was not concerned that the War Crimes trials in 1945 after World War 2 deplored such activities.
The War Crimes trials may not be precedent in the State of Illinois and it may be ethical conduct for attorneys to harvest the teeth of victims of elder cleansing, but theft is unethical. Larkin in refusing to address this situation either ignores his obligation to the public or he is claiming a precedent that a certain group of attorneys and judges are special citizens entitled to special immunities not to be given to the rest of the citizens of Illinois. Equal protection of the law in Larkin’s world does not have the same meaning as it has in the rest of world.
[11] The transcript of proceedings is reported to have deleted this testimony, but a number of court watchers reported it and shortly after Ms. Denison raised the issue Judge Stuart suddenly resigned from the bench.
