From KKD: How is it that Justice Connors completely ignores jurisdiction in the Sykes case, but can write up a full decision in support of the 5th Amendment for another case. Unbelievable.

MaryGSykes.com

Amazingly, Justice Maureen Connors writes up a decision dismissing a case based upon lack of jurisdiction, but ignored service upon Mary Sykes in 09 P 4585

Johnson v. Platas, 2016 IL App (1st) 143468-U (Ill. App., 2016)  see http://www.illinoiscourts.gov/r23_orders/AppellateCourt/2016/1stDistrict/1143468_R23.pdf

And how is this a “rule 23” decision that is not supposed to be cited.  Now attorneys in Illinois cannot cite cases that fully support the 5th Amendment?  I believe that violates the First Amendment.  Rule 23 is clearly unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

This Johnson case that Attorney Denison refers is particularly galling as Justice Connors openly and notoriously ignored the jurisdictional requirements in the Mary Sykes case 09 P 4585 and Jerome Larkin, using the power of his office as administrator of the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission attempted to silence protest.   
 
ELDER CLEANSING/HUMAN TRAFFICKING is today a major business in the UNITED STATES.   The Political and…

View original post 99 more words

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s