9th circuit agrees: bloggers have same 1st Amendment Protections as Professional Journalists

9th circuit agrees: bloggers have same 1st Amendment Protections as Professional Journalists

And in a great case found by Judy Ditkowsky (thanks so much), we now know that the 9th circuit says us bloggers get the same First Amendment Protections as conventional professional journalists.

Read on.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-usa-blogger-ruling-20140117,0,7794290.story

Now, the question is, whether my Tribunal agrees, and if they think that a private citizen who happens to have a law license, will be protected by our beloved First Amendment when she faces disciplinary proceedings for blogging.

 

Oh my, there’s blogging going on in the courtroom, what will we do?

 

I would vote the Tribunal should just reread the First Amendment, but that’s IMHO.

JoAnne

New Illinois POA forms in wordperfect and word, ready to use

See below, these reflect the statutory changes since 2011.

these are pretty good, but you might want to put in there you don’t ever want to be isolated from your children/grandchildren and name them all. It might help, I don’t know.

POA Health Care:

In Wordperfect

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6FbJzwtHocwR3Y4WUxPRllQeTQ/edit?usp=sharing

In MS Word

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6FbJzwtHocwZjQ3Qzl3SnFuUTg/edit?usp=sharing

POA Property

In Wordperfect

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6FbJzwtHocwaW41eVJkYnFSUDA/edit?usp=sharing

In MS Word

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6FbJzwtHocwNkktLUNRX1EwVDQ/edit?usp=sharing

From Alyece Russell — write to the Am. Aca. of Neurosurgeons!

Dear Readers;

One of the things I have not thought of is actually writing to the American Academy of Neurosurgeons to warn them of what is going on in probate.  However, I have to tell you that MN has been told by various doctors in Chicago, that even they have noticed that the more money and property has, the more likely Rabin-Amdur-Shaw or another “probate doc” will say an oldster is demented!  Imagine that.

Read on, from Alyece:

rom: Alyece Russell
Sent: Jan 16, 2014 7:10 AM
To: jdenison@surfree.com, “ElderAngels, Inc.” , Elaine Renoire ,
Subject: Fwd: An Appointment

I wanted to forward this letter……NO one was [sufficiently] professional to contact/email me to find out WHAT the issue was regarding my mother who is an elderly……..who doesn’t understand English.  The elderlyare a group of people that America society has  little regard for their rights especially and especially a non-speaking elderly who isn’t American.  A prisoner and an animal has more legal rights.

 How can the laws be reformed if one first doesn’t listen to problems that can occur with the elderly.  One problem is that the medical field, unless it is a psychologist/
psychiatrist, doesn’t understand that the caretaker/family member can have a criminal personality.  The medical profession are putting the elderly in the hands of someone who can be dangerous.   This issue needs to be addressed.
How can we protect the elderly when you have organizations that aren’t professional to want to know the problem.
———- Forwarded message ———-From: Alyece Russell <llessura@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 1:54 PM
Subject: An Appointment
To: crydell@aan.com, blevi@aan.com, rlarson@aan.com, cphelps@aan.com

To the American Academy of Neurology:

I am sure that the neurologists and neuroscience professionals are dedicated to promoting the highest quality patient-centered neurologic care but it has come to my attention that the in the medical field the laws need to be reformed.  A serious situation has happened concerning my mother who is a foreign who CAN NOT speak English well and is 86 yrs. old and please do not think I am blaming the medical field but neurologists are one of the first in line in treating the elderly.
May I along with my mother’s friends come forward to represent what has happened to the executive and legal administration.  This is sad situation for my mother especially when she can’t speak her language to communicate to a doctor nor did the doctor have a translator present.  This is vital for one to be able to speak one’s feelings/thoughts completely  or emotional/psychological problems can worsen the situation.
Please do not think I am the type of person who believes in suing because I don’t.  I believe problems needs to be heard, addressed and seek a solution.  Laws in the medical profession need to be reexamined.
Time is not on my side my mother is 86 yrs. old and I hope you will allow me to meet with the executive or legal administration.  May my situation help others, I do not want anyone to go through this nightmare.
Thank you.
Ms. Russell

 

From Sylvia Rudek and NASGA–Advantage plan troubles continue…

From Sylvia Rudek and NASGA–Advantage plan troubles continue…

National Association to Stop Guardian Abuse

 

Minnesota wants CMS to investigate Humana’s Medicare Advantage plans

Posted: 16 Jan 2014 09:10 AM PST

 

Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson is asking the CMS to investigate Medicare Advantage plans offered by Humana and has presented regulators with more than 25 affidavits of complaints from beneficiaries.

The affidavits allege, for instance, that Humana denied reimbursement for services that it is required to cover for all Medicare beneficiaries—including diagnostic ultrasounds, mammograms and care in a skilled-nursing facility for a stroke patient.

The letter also said, among other complaints, that the Louisville, Ky.-based insurer created confusion by not adequately disclosing which providers were in-network and does not comply with required appeals processes.

The complaints come at a time when the popularity of Medicare Advantage plans has been escalating. And Minnesota has the highest percentage of Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in an MA plan, at 49%—compared with 28.8% of beneficiaries nationwide, the letter said. Humana has 17% of the Medicare Advantage market in Minnesota, according to Swanson’s office.

Swanson wrote that she was asking the CMS to pursue an investigation because states do not have the authority to enforce Medicare Advantage plan rules and make benefit determinations.

Full Article and Source:
Minnesota wants CMS to investigate Humana’s Medicare Advantage plans

 

Right now Sylvia Rudek is fighting her own battles with Mediacare Humana Advantage plan in ND Illinois federal court.  We have not heard back on Human’s/OLR’s motion to dismiss, but as usual, first they argue they are “federal officers” to get into federal court, then they have “federal immunity” so they don’t have to pay for the damage and trauma caused by delaying stroke rehab to her severely debilitated father by 21 days, causing permanent damage and trauma.  Humana says it’s not responsible.  They threw about 50+ cases at us and after reading them all, I determined all of those cases had to do with no appeal being filed.  Well, Sylvia Rudek, our brave champion of the elderly filed her appeal and won!

Let’s see what the federal district court judge says.

And not only did they take one bite at the apple on a Motion to Dismiss, they took two, arguing their second motion was somehow different from the first when it clearly was not.

I hope the court does the right thing.

JoAnne

Watch COOPER’S CORNER tonight to discuss troubles in the courts!

Watch COOPER’S CORNER tonight to discuss troubles in the courts!

Dear Readers;

 

I will be on COOPER’S CORNER tonight discussing all the problems in the probate courts and what will happen with the IARDC next week who says that I am lying about the Sykes case and there are no gold coins missing and the court has jurisdiction.

 

Subpoenas have been served and depositions have been taken.

The trial is at 10 am each day Jan 21 to 24, 2014 and the public, of course, is invited.  I will have a blogger there to blog and post each day.

Gloria Sykes and Kathie Bakken, Yolanda Bakken and Scott will be there. The IARDC struck my expert witnesses declaring that each of Bev Cooper, Ken Cooper, Sylvia Rudek, director of Nasga, etc. are not experts in probate blogging and cable shows, which is utterly ridiculous.  I will have them talk about their own cases and how my blog doesn’t lie and is like other blogs they have seen.

 

Come and watch the show, come and comment on the blogs–we still have the First Amendment even if SOME authorities don’t believe that is the case.

And remember, no matter what the IARDC does next week, I am totally here for all of YOU, my beloved PUBLIC and Court abuse victims.  I will NOT abandon you.  Atty Curt Sakarian told me to take down my blog and abandon all of YOU who don’t pay me and many don’t appreciate all I do, but I absolutely refuse to abandon a one of you.

JoAnne

From Rosanna Miller–Fraud on the Court

“Fraud On The Court By An Officer Of The Court” And “Disqualification Of Judges, State and Federal”

1. Who is an “officer of the court”?

A judge is an officer of the court, as well as are all attorneys. A state judge is a state judicial officer, paid by the State to act impartially and lawfully. A federal judge is a federal judicial officer, paid by the federal government to act impartially and lawfully. State and federal attorneys fall into the same general category and must meet the same requirements. A judge is not the court. People v. Zajic, 88 Ill.App.3d 477, 410 N.E.2d 626 (1980).

2. What is “fraud on the court”?

Whenever any officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, he/she is engaged in “fraud upon the court”. In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated “Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury. … It is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function — thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted.”
“Fraud upon the court” has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to “embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery can not perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication.” Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7 Moore’s Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, ¶ 60.23. The 7th Circuit further stated “a decision produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence a decision at all, and never becomes final.”

3. What effect does an act of “fraud upon the court” have upon the court proceeding?

“Fraud upon the court” makes void the orders and judgments of that court.
It is also clear and well-settled Illinois law that any attempt to commit “fraud upon the court” vitiates the entire proceeding. The People of the State of Illinois v. Fred E. Sterling, 357 Ill. 354; 192 N.E. 229 (1934) (“The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters applies to judgments as well as to contracts and other transactions.”); Allen F. Moore v. Stanley F. Sievers, 336 Ill. 316; 168 N.E. 259 (1929) (“The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters …”); In re Village of Willowbrook, 37 Ill.App.2d 393 (1962) (“It is axiomatic that fraud vitiates everything.”); Dunham v. Dunham, 57 Ill.App. 475 (1894), affirmed 162 Ill. 589 (1896); Skelly Oil Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 338 Ill.App. 79, 86 N.E.2d 875, 883-4 (1949); Thomas Stasel v. The American Home Security Corporation, 362 Ill. 350; 199 N.E. 798 (1935).
Under Illinois and Federal law, when any officer of the court has committed “fraud upon the court”, the orders and judgment of that court are void, of no legal force or effect.

4. What causes the “Disqualification of Judges?”

Federal law requires the automatic disqualification of a Federal judge under certain circumstances.
In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court held that “Disqualification is required if an objective observer would entertain reasonable questions about the judge’s impartiality. If a judge’s attitude or state of mind leads a detached observer to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge must be disqualified.” [Emphasis added]. Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994).
Courts have repeatedly held that positive proof of the partiality of a judge is not a requirement, only the appearance of partiality. Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988) (what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance); United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985) (Section 455(a) “is directed against the appearance of partiality, whether or not the judge is actually biased.”) (“Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. §455(a), is not intended to protect litigants from actual bias in their judge but rather to promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial process.”).
That Court also stated that Section 455(a) “requires a judge to recuse himself in any proceeding in which her impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Taylor v. O’Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989). In Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972), the Court stated that “It is important that the litigant not only actually receive justice, but that he believes that he has received justice.”
The Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that “justice must satisfy the appearance of justice”, Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954). A judge receiving a bribe from an interested party over which he is presiding, does not give the appearance of justice.
“Recusal under Section 455 is self-executing; a party need not file affidavits in support of recusal and the judge is obligated to recuse herself sua sponte under the stated circumstances.” Taylor v. O’Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989).
Further, the judge has a legal duty to disqualify himself even if there is no motion asking for his disqualification. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals further stated that “We think that this language [455(a)] imposes a duty on the judge to act sua sponte, even if no motion or affidavit is filed.” Balistrieri, at 1202.
Judges do not have discretion not to disqualify themselves. By law, they are bound to follow the law. Should a judge not disqualify himself as required by law, then the judge has given another example of his “appearance of partiality” which, possibly, further disqualifies the judge. Should another judge not accept the disqualification of the judge, then the second judge has evidenced an “appearance of partiality” and has possibly disqualified himself/herself. None of the orders issued by any judge who has been disqualified by law would appear to be valid. It would appear that they are void as a matter of law, and are of no legal force or effect.
Should a judge not disqualify himself, then the judge is violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. United States v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996) (“The right to a tribunal free from bias or prejudice is based, not on section 144, but on the Due Process Clause.”).
Should a judge issue any order after he has been disqualified by law, and if the party has been denied of any of his / her property, then the judge may have been engaged in the Federal Crime of “interference with interstate commerce”. The judge has acted in the judge’s personal capacity and not in the judge’s judicial capacity. It has been said that this judge, acting in this manner, has no more lawful authority than someone’s next-door neighbor (provided that he is not a judge). However some judges may not follow the law.
If you were a non-represented litigant, and should the court not follow the law as to non-represented litigants, then the judge has expressed an “appearance of partiality” and, under the law, it would seem that he/she has disqualified him/herself.
However, since not all judges keep up to date in the law, and since not all judges follow the law, it is possible that a judge may not know the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court and the other courts on this subject. Notice that it states “disqualification is required” and that a judge “must be disqualified” under certain circumstances.
The Supreme Court has also held that if a judge wars against the Constitution, or if he acts without jurisdiction, he has engaged in treason to the Constitution. If a judge acts after he has been automatically disqualified by law, then he is acting without jurisdiction, and that suggest that he is then engaging in criminal acts of treason, and may be engaged in extortion and the interference with interstate commerce.
Courts have repeatedly ruled that judges have no immunity for their criminal acts. Since both treason and the interference with interstate commerce are criminal acts, no judge has immunity to engage in such acts.

“A judge is an officer of the court, as well as are all attorneys. A state judge is a state judicial officer, paid by the State to act impartially and lawfully. A federal judge is a federal judicial officer, paid by the federal government to act impartially and lawfully.”

A judge in a statutory court, while called a judicial officer buy definition is not a true judicial officer. Unlike a common law court created by a section of the state constitution in which true judicial power resides by its own merit, a statutory court exists at the will of the state legislature and are administrative in nature carrying out the sovereign will of its creator upon those people who are not true citizens of the state but which may be citizens of the fed gov via the 14th.

While such judges exercise judicial style powers over fed subjects and the like, constitutionally they are mere admin officers.

Praise to God/Patriotic to the Republic
Rosanna

A must watch video from Gloria–this woman beats the CA system!

MaryGSykes.com

Dear Readers;

As you have heard it on this blog, there have been at least a half dozen cases which ran without jurisdiction:  Sykes, Wyman (death was her way out), Gore (ditto), Bedin (wrongfully evicted from hospital), Tyler (death)–in fact, once a petition is filed, death is generally the only way out.  If you ask Sylvia Rudek, director of NASGA, only a handful of people have gotten out of a filed guardianship Petition.  Wyman had the only way–and that is to run.  Carol Wyman, beaten and near death, escaped a locked down Illinois nursing home, called a son and was driven thru the night to Colorado.

Her case is famous, but still ended in the tragedy she could not see her grandchildren or any longer live in Illinois without fear she would be arrested and returned to a locked down nursing facility.

So, here is one (brave) Santa Clara woman…

View original post 59 more words

Dangerous Choices – a nursing home survey

MaryGSykes.com

Dear Readers;

As many of you have read right here on this blog, I was recently in court when Judge Stuart informed me that there is no caselaw indicating that home placement with a kind, caring relative or friend is preferred over nursing home placement.  That was related to me in the case In re Janie Thomas, 10 P 7666.

While not to burst anyone’s bubble over how grand nursing home placement is, and you have seen wonderful stories right here on this blog and on John Wyman’s blog and on other blogs (www.stopguardianabuse.org) as to such grandeur and elegance – not, here is a wonderful, wonderful report that speaks volumes on the subject.

provides a wonderful, detailed report on how it is such a very nice idea to make that choice.

Despite the fact you can’t have your own stuff, you stuff gets immediately lost, stolen, destroyed, you…

View original post 106 more words

Another story of abuse in a nursing home from Garr Sanders

MaryGSykes.com

Please pray for this man and his brother.

Greetings All,

Bipolar runs in our family. Our mother was bipolar. Our father retired Lieut. Col. Clarence B. Sanders Jr. lives in Texas. Our mother Elaine Sanders, was living in Mississippi. And Robert’s brother Garr Sanders, myself, has lived in Pennsylvania my entire adult life. My brother Robert Sanders lived alone in Columbia, Missouri; when Robert started experiencing signs of bipolar he sought help. Turns out the help Robert sought for his bipolar disorder illness somehow caught the eye of Connie Hendren, a public administrator in Columbia, Missouri, Boone County. Apparently, and correctly so; Connie Hendren saw Robert as an easy target with all his family out of state Connie Hendren determined it would be easy to deceive Robert’s family. This public administrator Connie Hendren had herself appointed as Robert’s Guardian without telling Robert’s family of the guardianship hearing.   Unknown to me Robert was already under…

View original post 3,199 more words