Attorney on Trial for Exercising First Amendment Rights

JoAnne Denison has made a very big mistake, it appears. Denison, who has been a licensed attorney in the State of Illinois for twenty seven years, has been writing about corruption in the courts.

That appears to be a career-killing No-No.

Denison first became concerned as to the hanky panky going on in State Probate courts via her involvement in the adult guardianship of Mary G. Sykes. Sykes was put under an adult guardianship, without apparent legal jurisdiction by the Cook County Court. Neither Mary Sykes nor her adult daughter, Gloria, were served with notice of the proceedings. The court-appointed guardians have subsequently isolated the elderly woman from family and friends for roughly four years.

This is sadly not unusual in guardianship/conservatorship cases. When a concerned family member or friend attempts to intervene in what is often abuse of the “protected person” by the court-appointed guardian, the protesting party often gets treated most severely by the court. Restraining orders are passed out in these cases like salt water taffy, and more often than not there is a lack of due process involved in the restraining order hearings.

Meaning, in lay terms, that the restrained person does not get a hearing.

There also appears to be questionable financial actions taken by the guardians, Adam Stern and Cynthia Farenga, in the Mary Sykes matter. Over a million dollars in gold coins have been unaccounted for by the guardians. Once again, this is -- unfortunately -- business as usual in probate court. While one of the primary functions of a guardian is to conserve the estate, many guardians tend to look at OPM -- Other People's Money as a free pass to whoopee it up on someone else's dime. Guardians “forget” to do inventories, “lose” valuable artwork and antiques and in some cases “misplace” entire bank accounts.


Denison, however, found all this abuse and embezzlement to be . . . inappropriate. She began a blog, marygsykes.com, which has featured articles by attorneys, award-winning journalists and bloggers as well as her own commentary on what is happening on a widespread basis in probate courts across the country. She has faithfully posted the legal documents relevant to the Sykes case.

And for this public service, Denison may lose her license to practice law.

Going into the complaint, which was filed by Jerome Larkin of the Illinois Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission (IARDC), one finds that Denison is being tried for exercising her right to informed free speech. Larkin cites a number of quotes from Denison on her blog as evidence of the following:

a) Making a statement which a lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge . . . .

b) conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation . . . .

c) conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice . . . .

d) presenting, participating in presenting, or threatening to present criminal charges to obtain an advantage in a civil matter....

e) conduct which tends to defeat the administration of justice or to bring the courts or the legal profession into disrepute.

Rest at Link: [link to www.activistpost.com]