From Janet Phelan–a call to the UN to aide and rescue the elders and can abusive guardianships equate to Torture under international treaties?

From: Janet Phelan <writejanet@live.com>
To: kenneth ditkowsky <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>;
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 1:22 PM
Subject: RE: Request for Administrative Records

The human rights record of the US is at question here. If there is no redress within the US, it will be necessary to take it “outside the house.”

 
I spoke with the UN human rights office recently. When I said that I was calling on behalf of literally hundreds, if not thousands, of individuals who had experienced profound deprivation of rights in the US courts and I was therefore requesting information about filing under the applicable treaty org, the woman at the human rights office (NY UN) had a minor meltdown.
 
Well, good for her! There are now too many of us, and some, as you know, have incurred more of a personal “interest” and pursuant vendetta by our own government. And for what? For standing up for our parents and loved ones?  
 
The US will go down in history as an experiment which morphed to a brutal and oppressive regime. We will make the record, make the filing under the applicable treaty, send out the press releases and we shall see what transpires. The truth has a way of asserting itself, even under these oppressive circumstances.
 
As Bush said, “Let’s Roll!!” []
 
Thank you, 
 
Janet Phelan

in Exile 

Janet also asked that I post this information about torture.  As many of you are well aware, the elderly are often subject to forced psychotropic drugging, unnecessary and unwanted medical procedure to make money for miscreant hospitals and nursing homes–and this may fall under the guise of torture, as well as isolation from dozens of friends and family (mental torture) and forcing the person to live in a locked down nursing home while the family residence, vacation home and other properties are sold.  I am currently in a case where father is crying out to go home, he has the money and ability to go home, and Rehab assist sits there and listens to all of this and ignores it making $5,000 per month to be his “medical guardian.”  see below.

More from Janet

A movement is at foot to file with the United Nations concerning our guardianship cases. It is becoming painfully obvious that the United States government, whether it be the individual states departments of justice, the police, APS–whatever–have no intention of honoring our reports or affirming our lawsuits. We therefore need to move this forward on an international level.
 
The UN has jurisdiction when the United States has signed an international treaty. As the US rarely signs human rights treaties, we have determined that the best possible treaty for us to file under would be the Convention Against Torture. Here is a link to the Treaty:
 
 
Article 1 is of special interest:
 

PART I

Article 1

1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term “torture” means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

As you can see, the wording in Article 1 actually applies to many of our cases!  We are therefore requesting that the recipients of this email send us a brief and concise (1-2 pages max) statement of your case, with emphasis on the issues that align with Article 1 of the Convention Against Torture. That means that your reports need to focus not so much on the financial issues, but rather on the pain and suffering. This particularly may reflect when the alleged incapacitated person is isolated from family and friends.
 
Please send your reports to writejanet@live.com and also to bstone12@hotmail.com
 
Together, we can beat this monster…..
 
Janet Phelan
 

CONGRATULATIONS TO KEN! He has been awarded Writ of Cert of the month by the Supreme Court Press

who did a wonderful, outstanding job on publication of this very important document.

 

The page goes live tomorrow.

Petition of the Month, July 2014: Ditkowsky v. The Illinois Attorney Disciplinary Review Committee (IARDC)

The Supreme Court Press “Petition of the Month”TM for July 2014 is Ditkowsky v. The Illinois Attorney Disciplinary Review Committee (IARDC) Supreme Court Dkt. No. 13-1473, an appeal coming out of the State of Illinois. The petition was filed pro se by the petitioner Kenneth K. Ditkowsky.

Question Presented: (two of four questions presented by Petitioner)

1. Does the First Amendment provide protection to an attorney who reports criminal conduct to law enforcement?

2. Does the Illinois Attorney Disciplinary code nullify the moral and common law obligation of requiring citizens to object to elder abuse and financial exploitation of the elderly?

tiny lion

Many lawyers take up the law for idealistic reasons – to fight for the weak, to correct injustices, and preserve the rule of law. Upholding these values requires action be taken – action that can be lauded as crusading and exemplary by some, but reckless and inconvenient by others. However, when the lawyer takes on corruption whose seed might be planted within the legal system itself, the system sometimes retaliates with a fury with the ultimate punishment for an attorney – a referral to the bar’s disciplinary committee and long term suspension or disbarment.

In the case of Ditkowsky v. The Illinois Attorney Disciplinary Review Committee (IARDC), Supreme Court, Dkt. No. 13-1473, Kenneth Ditkowsky was suspended from the bar for four years due to his investigation of what he believed to be the looting of an elderly woman, Mary Sykes. He believed that her attorney-guardian may have gone so far as to have stripped her bank safe deposit box and her 29 gold teeth. When he pursued the investigation, he was referred to the IARDC which recommended an ultimately achieved Ditkowsky’s bar suspension. The IARDC took little account of Ditkowsky’s past role in ferreting out corruption, notably helping the feds uncover judicial bribe taking in the Operation Greylord scandal of thirty years ago.

The Ditkowsky petition asks the Court to consider whether a lawyer’s action to protect a potential abuse victim is Constitutionally protected speech.

As I dug into the Sykes case, I discovered that I had stepped into a quagmire. What was going was unbelievable! The family of Alice Gore reported that their mother was also isolated, stripped of her assets, abused and Attorney Miriam Solo had orchestrated the removal of 29 teeth from Ms. Gore’s mouth so as to mine her gold filings!                                                                                                                                                                                                           – Kenneth K. Ditkowsky
tiny lion Mr. Ditkowsky – Thank you for sitting down with us and discussing your Supreme Court filing. You have an interesting background as an activist for judicial integrity.  Can you tell our readers about your role in ferreting out the corruption in Operation Greylord?
tiny lion

As an active practicing attorney in Cook County, Illinois, I had several occasions to appear before Judges who were targeted by the Operation Greylord scandal. This scandal rocked the legal profession as it exposed not only the extent of the corruption but the venality. The Chief Judge of the Chancery Division, Judge Shields,   was charged with accepting a $200.00 bribe. Dave Shields had had a reputation as a ‘reformer’ and had been expected to be a future leader of the new era of trust that was about to commence in the Circuit Court of Cook County. Fifteen Judges, dozens of attorneys, dozens of court personnel etc. went to jail; additional judges quietly retired, allowing them to avoid facing charges.

The most venal of the judges was R. Holtzer. He was the President of his religious organization and managed to associate himself with all the right causes.vHis wife was a supervising Insurance Agent for the Prudential Insurance Company and in fact supervised several of my clients. As luck would have it, I accepted an injunction suit that was assigned to Judge Holtzer. The facts were uncontested and in my mind, my clients’ right to an injunction was guaranteed by black letter law. An entire community was being cut off by certain City of Chicago construction so that from approximately 6:00 A.M. to 10:00 A.M. and 3:00 PM to 7:00 PM they, and most emergency vehicles, would have extreme difficulty in accessing their homes.  

Immediately after the case was assigned, I had a visitor.   Mrs. Holtzer came to my office and informed me that I needed several hundred thousand dollars of life insurance. As I had not just fallen off the turnip truck, I politely invited her to leave the office, pointing out to her that my insurance agent was a Mr. Gross, an agent under her supervision; I would discuss my insurance needs with him. I then made two telephone calls. The first call was to a Treasury Agent who was assigned to the Intelligence unit, and the second was to a personal friend who at that time just happened to be the Special Agent in Charge of the FBI office in Miami, Florida.   I was almost livid with anger and had to blow off steam somewhere.   My two friends were willing listeners. I knew that my refusal to purchase insurance meant that when the case came up for hearing the next morning, I was a dead bag loser.  I prepared my Notice of Appeal and docketing statement.  As scheduled, the next morning we appeared before Judge Holtzer.  The Judge was so very nice that butter would not melt in his mouth. He listened with great interest to our arguments, asked some questions and then with pursed judicial demeanor announced that he was dismissing the case as we had an adequate remedy at law.  The Construction would only continue on for a few months and the Construction company had posted a bond and therefore *****.   I waited for the order of dismissal to be entered and served everyone in sight with a copy of the Notice of Appeal.   I then went down to the clerks’ office and ordered an expedited record.  Thereafter I went to the Appellate Court clerks’ office, paid my docketing fee and filed the docketing statement.             

When I returned to my office, a messenger from the Corporation Counsel’s office was waiting for me with a document entitled “Confession of Error”! The City of Chicago was acknowledging the appropriateness of the Petition for Injunctive relief and was obviating the need for an appeal!

Judge Holtzer was not the only Judge engaging in such tactics. I appeared before many of the judges but was not affected except in two additional cases. The rulings in those cases were very strange. The lawyers on the other side of each of these cases were very defensive and neither could look me in the eye.  I have no concrete evidence that there was anything wrong or that any of the judges or lawyers were corrupt.

The bulk of the Greylord problems involved the traffic court.  It was not uncommon to hear that if you hired a particular lawyer, no matter how serious the traffic charge was he had a 100% success rate. Of course, if you had parking tickets, etc., seeing a particular lawyer and/or a particular assistant corporate counsel would cause the ordinance violations to go away.  Similarly, in the criminal courts, certain lawyers had magic powers and their clients fared much better than those of ordinary lawyers. The cottage industry of corruption was exposed by the United States of America in subsequent enforcement procedures undertaken in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

tiny lion

Today we stand at the thirty year anniversary of the first Greylord conviction. What is your assessment of the present state of the Cook County judiciary? 

tiny lion

Today corruption is not open and notorious as it once was. For instance, in 1961 when I first appeared before the Bar, corruption was worn like a badge of honor. We had two competing Courts – the Circuit Court (essentially a Court run by the Mr. Nash and Mr. Kelly – Democratic Party power houses) and the Superior Court (essentially run by the Republicans).

The Court had some very fine judges. Judge Lupe as an example had the reputation for honor and honesty. Lawyers who appeared before him – win, lose or draw – lauded him and win lose or draw reported their cases had received a fair trial. Judge Covelli had a well-deserved reputation for his sense of humor. In one case, the foreign born parties to a lawsuit lapsed into their native language. No interpreter was present or called for and Covelli, without missing a beat, allowed each to testify in his/her native language. Covelli’s translation was “He says ‘yes'; she says ‘no'”. In another case, I and my opponent discovered that there was no resolution possible in the case because of the ‘Rule Against Perpetuities’. Covelli ordered the sheriff to lock us in the Jury Room until we came to a settlement. When we discovered he was pushing the limits, it took us two hours, but we did reach an agreement which was found satisfactory by both of our opposing clients. Most importantly every Chancery Judge had a sense of humor and in non-political cases – always provided a level playing field. You can name these judges on the fingers of one hand. The Court employed Masters in Chancery. The Masters were a world apart. Certain fixer firms abounded, and if they appeared as your opponent, a smart lawyer resigned or prepared for an appeal.

Some judges were openly soliciting bribes. One called me on the telephone at home and his words to me were “the bid is five”. I had no idea why he was calling or what he meant. I soon found out. Another ruled that the Pythagorean Theorem formula was invalid. This judge, after I served a Notice of Appeal, was informed by his son, a high school freshman, that he was wrong and would be embarrassed. The Judge actually came to my home and begged me to withdraw the appeal. He presented a settlement offer that I could not refuse.

After Greylord nothing really changed except that the fixer firms changed their names and the open solicitation for bribes was curtailed. I say curtailed because it takes a new form today. Gone is the white envelope full of dollars. As Judges are elected, many have campaign fund accounts and the bribe is a campaign contribution. As an elected judge faces a retention ballot periodically, rhetorically he/she has to have money to protect his position; however, there are more teeth in the mouth of the average hen than judges not being retained. A wife or child of a judge might legally receive a salary for being the chairman of the campaign committee or an employee in a not disinterested firm.

I’ve detailed in e-mails to the United States Treasury, law enforcement and other interested people a paper on how judges and other members of the political elite receive bribes. The White Envelope Full of Cash is obsolete. I had one case in which the Judge’s wife was hired during the case by the defendant entity. In fact the employment contract was offered and accepted on the day of trial. In a case in which the Director of the Illinois Department of Revenue was an interested party, one of the investigators for the IDR furnished me a copy of the Supreme Court of Illinois’ opinion a one full week before it was announced to the public. She informed me that the opinion had been written by *****, an attorney in the Illinois Department of Revenue office. (I never verified her statement but, word for word, the document I received was filed as the opinion of the Court!) I did notice that as each judge, retired he was appointed by the Illinois Department of Revenue as a special attorney in a particularly complicated tax case. This all may be coincidence and unrelated to the decision as reached.

The guardianship cases about which I complained, for which the Illinois ARDC and the Illinois Supreme Court pulled my license, present a whole smorgasbord of examples. Gloria Sykes reported that there were unusual campaign contributions by ****’s husband to a political figure. ***** reported that this husband was involved in more than a hundred real estate transactions involving estates in a single year. Indeed, the official real estate transaction records of Cook County reveal unusual mortgage transactions as well as transactions in which one party allegedly in disrepute purchases a parcel of land and then turns around and resells it to a political figure who is in a position to do “some good” to the aforesaid party at a bargain price.

Your inquiry is whether or not Greylord created any change in the climate of corruption in Cook County. The answer is yes. The system is just as venal as it ever was, however, the transactions are much more subtle and much harder to prove. If I wish to sell my home to Judge X for half of its value, who is to tell me I cannot. You may assume that the verdict that I receive from Judge X next January is related, but, ****. Judge X’s daughter is a very bright articulate young woman. Why should I discriminate against her and not hire her as my personal assistant?

Let me make it very clear. We have some bad people in Cook County who are judges, but, we also have many who are dedicated public servants who try to do a good job. For instance, we have several judges who work obscenely long hours and actually read the law, attempt to understand the facts, and go out of their way so that each litigant enjoys a level playing field. In my fifty plus years before the Bar, I’ve appeared before hundreds of judges who have made me proud of my profession and more importantly proud to appear before them. I’ve had opponents who I’d give my right arm for and they for me. The vast majority of lawyers and judges whom I’ve appeared before (or with) are honorable men and women whom I number among my friends. However, there is a minority who are the nadir of the profession. It is indeed fortunate that this collection of miscreants appeared in the twilight of my career rather than in the beginning. (In my early days I was pugnacious)

I hope that this answered your question. A lawyer is trained to answer every question with a firm “maybe!”

In answer to your question requesting my opinion as to whether the judges who suspended me are problem judges, I have to make the following statement: The Judges of the Supreme Court of Illinois are elected. They are the judges who suspended me. What they did was to affirm the review panel of the IARDC. My research on these panels of the IARDC suggests to me that if the IARDC decided that red was green, the panels would attorn and each panel in turn would agree. The Supreme Court seems to rubber stamp most of the proceedings of the IARDC. However, it also appears that an unusual decision is from time to time published. I refer you to Karavidas 2013 IL 115767 (page 15), and Peel v ARDC 496 US 91 (page 10, 33, 34, 38). It should be noted that the seven Judges of the Illinois Supreme Court, like all attorneys, have taken an oath to protect the Constitution of Illinois and the United States of America. It is quite obvious that Mr. Larkin, his commission, his lawyers and his rubber stamp panels have assaulted the First Amendment. Article 1 Section 12 of the Illinois Constitution directs the entities of Illinois including the Supreme Court to provide a remedy for all wrongs perpetrated in the state. It therefore follows that the judges of the Supreme Court of Illinois have been specifically directed to protect citizens from grievous wrongs that have been promulgated against the elderly, disabled, and the whistleblowers such as yours truly who protest elder cleansing.

tiny lion

Let’s now turn to the case that precipitated your Supreme Court filing – which unfortunately is your own case – you were suspended from practicing law for four years – for conduct that allegedly occurred in conjunction with your vigorous legal defense of an elderly woman named Mary Sykes whose assets were possibly being looted. Can you describe the concerns regarding Ms. Sykes that you were investigating?

tiny lion

Illinois in its statutes has incorporated all the protections necessary to protect senior citizens from exploitation and abuse. 735 ILCS 110/5 guarantees that the rights under the First Amendment and Article 1 section 4 of the Illinois Constitution are FIRST PRINCIPLES! Section 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3 points out that guardianships are not death sentences, but are only tools to be used to provide healthy, comfortable, happy and useful lives for persons subject to the draconian remedy of guardianship. Guardianship is a thankless task (and intended to be so) that only well-meaning and well intentioned people should undertake.

My concern with the Mary Sykes case was the allegation and the proof that developed that convinced me that she was railroaded into a guardianship so that her hard earned assets could be expropriated by her older daughter and she could be eliminated. I refer to this final solution as “involuntary assisted suicide.” I knew Mary; I had represented her previously in a jury trial. I know from my experience that the dementia is progressive and does not suddenly appear. I also knew that Mary’s older daughter was married to an individual who suffered from chronic unemployment. He just could not keep a job.

As I state in my petition after Mary’s family contacted me, I started my FRCP 11 investigation. This investigation required me to find out why Dr. Patel’s report was 180 degrees different than the Report of Dr. Amdur. To my surprise Adam Stern called me and threatened me. When Stern could not frighten me, Peter Schmiedel called and he reiterated the threats. (I opened the speaker phone so that my wife could hear each conversation). The two attorneys, the first a Guardian ad Litem, the second, the attorney for the plenary guardian, then filed a Supreme Court Rule 137 motion against me. Rule 137 deals with false pleadings – I had not even inadvertently had contact with any pleading or any proceeding involving the case of In re: Mary Sykes 09 P 4585.

Now I was hooked. Even though there was no jurisdiction I had to address the threats. To my surprise, Judge Connors found me guilty of a Rule 137 violation. Exactly what violation it was has been never disclosed, but, the IARDC and these miscreants do not apparently have to be specific. I am accused by the IARDC of making false statements, yet not a single statement ever been disclosed. Whatever the false statements are only the IARDC knows!

Lawyers hold a special position of trust. We are not robots, and our loyalty is to Lady Justice. We do not aid and abet criminal conduct and we certainly do not participate in it. (Maybe I should say – most lawyers!). When injustice or wrongs occur as citizens, not only do we morally have a duty to address these wrongs, but our oath to defend the Constitution (and 18 USCA 4) require each of us (lawyers) to report to law enforcement the criminal activity.

I had received threats! Honest lawyers do not threaten – they do! Why should Adam Stern threaten me? Why would he be interested in preventing me from investigating a guardianship? The answer is obvious and I took the information that I knew and informed law enforcement. (Gloria Sykes had written a long complaint to the IARDC complaining of the fact her mother was being abused and isolated. She further complained of the theft of her and her mother’s property and the highly suspect and improper actions of Judge Connors, Cynthia Farenga, Adam Stern, et al.) I wrote requesting an investigation.

As I dug into the Sykes case, I discovered that I had stepped into a quagmire. What was going was unbelievable! The family of Alice Gore reported that their mother was also isolated, stripped of her assets, abused and Attorney Miriam Solo had orchestrated the removal of 29 teeth from Ms. Gore’s mouth so as to mine her gold filings!

tiny lion

How did it happen that you, acting as a defender of an elderly woman, became the ultimate victim, through a complaint to the IARDC?  What did they allege you did?

tiny lion

The Appellate Court decision finding that the Rule 137 proceedings against me were conducted without jurisdiction was described by Adam Stern as a technicality. Cynthia Farenga, the original Guardian ad Litem was extremely upset, as not only was Judge Connors rendered helpless to stop me from exercising my First Amendment Rights but I was now communicating with the Justice Department, Senator Kirk, and more significantly I was pointing out that a breach of fiduciary relationship was a taxable event. What this meant was that the ‘loot’ from the elder cleansing was taxable income. Worse yet it was to be taxed as ordinary income rates

As Blogs were picking up my statements and republishing them, the miscreants understood that it was possible that the Department of the Treasury would assign one of its employees in the intelligence division to examine the finances in the Sykes case. It also was apparent that Gloria Sykes and a bunch of her mother’s friends and neighbors were letter writers. They also were waging a vocal protest to the IARDC and law enforcement over the railroading of Mary Sykes into a guardianship wherein her liberty and property could be pirated. Scott Evans, a former Federal Employee with the CIA, disclosed that he had actually tracked down Mary and found her in an adult day care facility in Naperville, Illinois. He described the horrid conditions and how Mary had absolutely no stimulation or contact with “alive” people. He described the other residents as “zombies!” What upset Judge Connors, and the miscreants was the fact that he chose to disclose this fact after Peter Schmiedel informed the Court of the “wonderful progress” Mary was making.
Mr. Larkin and the IARDC desired to silence me and in particular wanted to stop the flow of letters and e-mails coming from me. The “safe harbor” letters to Farenga, and Stern were particularly offensive in that I offered to leave them out of any Civil Rights that I might file either for myself or a client if they just did the job that they were required to do. This job required them to formally report to the Court and allow it appear of record some uncontroverted facts:

The plenary guardian was insolvent prior to her appointment, yet today she exhibits all the attributes of wealth including expensive jewelry, lavish parties, expensive vacations, massive remodeling on her home etc. The big change in the fortunes of the plenary guardian is that she is now a pensioner, having retired from her educator position.

Mary Sykes had a safety deposit box (as a co-tenant with Gloria). This box was accessed by the guardian, the contents removed and not one item was inventoried. This box contained a large number of gold coins. These coins were those that Mary and Gloria inherited from Mary’s husband and one Albert Biddy. The coins had a value in excess of a million dollars. Mary’s two siblings and her younger daughter complained that they could not contact Mary. Telephone contact was forbidden by the plenary guardian. Mary’s contact with other friends and neighbors was cut off. Even her beloved garden club was forbidden her. Frequent visits to the emergency room by Mary were noted, including one visit in occasioned by Mary losing 10% of her body weight. Mary had trouble swallowing – the guardian just neglected to get her medical help.

I suggested that either of the GALs report to the Court that I had informed them of these facts and they could use my name, if either could not personaly verify any of them, if such made them more comfortable. When I received no reply I reported this fact to law enforcement. I demanded an Honest, intelligent and comprehensive investigation. See Farenga letter. Farenga’s letters are reproduced in Appendix P of the Petition for Writ of Certiorari.

Stripped to its essentials that IARDC complaint against me is that I complied with FRCP and started an investigation before filing a lawsuit, and when attempts to silence were promulgated I wrote to law enforcement and others a complaint that outlined some uncontroverted facts, to wit:
The guardianship of Mary violated the Rule of Law and in particular the Constitution in that:
No jurisdiction was obtained as Mary was not served with process that complied with the statutory requirements. The file indicates that there was no service on her at all. No notice of any kind was given to the relatives of Mary Sykes including her two sisters – this is also jurisdictional. Every protection to which Mary was entitled to was ignored.

It is respectfully submitted that the respondent and in particular its director made it clear in their cross-examination of me that this entire proceeding was brought because they could not intimidate me into abandoning my responsibilities as a human being. The punishment was augmented to four years because I showed no remorse. (An IARDC attorney actually asked me if I was remorseful for writing to the Attorney General of the United States disclosing this elder cleansing of Mary Sykes).
Effect on me of the Spurious Charges that threatened my livihood.

The question of how this chilling action by the Illinois Supreme Court affects other lawyers in suspending me, Mr. Amu, and prosecuting Ms. Denison has one simple answer. I do not know, however, I suspect that a family member or victim of elder cleansing is having a more difficult task in obtaining a lawyer to protect their interests. If my suspicion is correct, the Illinois Supreme Court has not only done a terrible service to the Illinois public, but, forever tarnished its reputation and that of the legal profession.                                                                                                                                                                                       – Kenneth K. Ditkowsky
tiny lion

How did you react when you learned that your law license was in jeopardy, when you were exercising your First Amendment rights and doing what you believed would assist a possible criminal investigation?

tiny lion

At first I could not believe that any State of Illinois entity would violate the policy of the State as recited in 735 ILCS 110/5; however, I did know that Illinois was the second most corrupt State in the Union. Illinois had two governors in Federal prison! Students could not name five governors of the State who had not been jailbirds in the past Century. It was difficult to pick up a newspaper and not read about some member of the political elite who was not in some sort of criminal proceeding as a defendant.
In my previous half century as a lawyer I had crossed swords with other corrupt political people and I even was the potential victim of a ‘hit.’ The miscreant was apprehended in the alley behind my home. A neighbor saw him lurking in the alley and called the police. He confessed to his purpose. I recognized the current miscreants as scavengers who preyed on the elderly and the disabled. As Gloria Sykes informed me that all she wanted was her mother to be free from bondage and returned to the life she (Mary) loved, I figured that having secured the ‘loot’ the miscreants would consider me a minor nuisance and avoid me.

Ms. Black who was the IARDC attorney had much more on her mind. She even tried to intimidate Ms. Sykes and as noted in the appendix in answers to discover pointed out that the administrator had filed his complaint against me without a scintilla of evidence that I had even made a statement that was inaccurate. This became serious when I was denied the opportunity to know what statements I made that were false, and even though the file of case 09 P 4585 vindicated every statement I made (or any of the friends and family of Mary Sykes had made), my subpoena for the file was quashed. Not only wwere the charges brought against me a secret, but any evidence that might inadvertently demonstrate the perfidy of the proceeding was not to be allowed to get within a country mile of the proceeding.

What was particularly interesting and disturbing was the fact that the Supreme Court of the United States had ruled on the issues I was facing and pointed out that the First Amendment protected even outright lies if they were content related. Thus, argued the respondent you could sell violent videos to children, picket funerals of dead hero, falsely claim to be a mental of honor winner, however you could not report criminal behavior of judicial officials. So disingenuous was the proceeding that the IARDC attorney made statements concerning a fifty year old Sawyer case (decided by the Supreme Court) that were contradicted in the last paragraphs of the opinion. The ruling of the Court was 100% contrary to the statement by an ARDC attorney. After I quoted the ruling word for word as stated by the court, both orally and in documents filed with the court, future statements by the IARDC did not cite the case. Sawyer unless over-ruled should cause the Supreme Court of the United States to reverse the decision of the Illinois Supreme Court that affects me.

tiny lion

Don’t you feel your case has a chilling effect on attorneys who spot corruption?

tiny lion

The question of how this chilling action by the Illinois Supreme Court affects other lawyers in suspending me, Mr. Amu, and prosecuting Ms. Denison has one simple answer.   I do not know, however, I suspect that a family member or victim of elder cleansing is having a more difficult task in obtaining a lawyer to protect their interests.    If my suspicion is correct,  the Illinois Supreme Court has not only done a terrible service to the Illinois public, but, forever tarnished its reputation and that of the legal profession.   Respect is earned.   It is earned by hard work, diligence, honor and honesty.     

 In my humble opinion it is dishonest for a lawyer to  shirk his responsibility to the Bill of Rights and the core value of America.  No one asked any individual to be a lawyer!  The taking of the oath meant taking the responsibility to stand up when Americana is threatened and be counted even if it means personal loss.  This may be flag waving – but, we have something special and it must be preserved.

  In my humble opinion it is dishonest for a lawyer to  shirk his responsibility to the Bill of Rights and the core value of America.  No one asked any individual to be a lawyer!  The taking of the oath meant taking the responsibility to stand up when Americana is threatened and be counted even if it means personal loss.  This may be flag waving – but, we have something special and it must be preserved.                                                                                                                                                                                                                       – Kenneth K. Ditkowsky

Cynthia Farenga responds and says she and her husband do not own 100 properties…

I told her I said property TRANSACTIONS and she did not respond further.

I believe she knows what she does and what is going on on the 18th floor.

She is a smart lady, from what I’ve seen, but not smart and brave enough to do her job and follow the Illinois Probate act.

Ken’s response was a bit stronger:

 Ms. Farenga is engaged in creating a diversion.  
 
Read what she says – the “concept of her husband having a hundred properties”    Her husband is not accumulating real estate – he is a conduit.  
 
The transaction works as follows:
 
1. the guardians (fiduciaries) run down the value of the property.   They then list it and of course get no takers.
2.  A friendly but low appraisal reduces the disclosed value to 50% or less of the actual value.   Again there are no takers.
3.  A nominee – someone like Farenga’s husband makes a bid.   HIs bid is low.   The Court is given a sad sad story and he or someone like him makes the purchase.  
4.  At the “proper time” the property is resold to another nominee – this is a pure nominee sale.  
Finally the property is liquidated and the miscreants usually through another set of nominees divide the profits reporting the gains as capital gains.   The reason Farenga responded to you is this situation strikes at a profit center of the elder cleansing industry.   She also denied that theft of the gold coins even though she was never accused of being a party to it and she had no knowledge of what Carolyn took out of the safety deposit box.   All she knew was the Carolyn suddenly went from being poor to being rich.   This is the same scenario.
 
If you notice – Mr. Larkin has kept far away from this situation.   The Department of the Treasury can fill in the dots and as Farenga is a fiduciary if she is directly or directly involved the entire transaction is colored as ordinary income.  Ordinary income that has not been reported on tax returns.
 
JoAnne – it is no wonder that Farenga is upset!   The alleged Breach of Fiduciary Relationship and the tax evasion are serious matters.   A lucrative source has been exposed and ******.
 
This is another example of the lady doth protest at the wrong time.
Ken Ditkowsky

KKD v JL: Appellate Briefs discussed and the ARDC’s position is to tell the public what to think

All of the briefs have now been submitted to the ARDC, and you can check them out at this link:

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwSlRTQjRvVFhZcVU&usp=sharing

Unlike the ARDC blog, this blog has everything, and we will post whatever you request that makes this blog fair sided and even.

Favorite quotes from our Appellate Brief:

An appellate Court must independently examine the entire record in First Amendment cases to ensure that “‘a forbidden intrusion on the field of free expression’” has not occurred. Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 466 U.S. 485

designed and intended to remove governmental restraints from the arena of public discussion, putting the decision as to what views shall be voiced largely into the hands of each of us, … in the belief that no other approach would comport with the premise of individual dignity and choice upon which our political system rests.” Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 24, 91 S.Ct. 1780, 29 L.Ed.2d 284 (1971). As relevant here, the First Amendment safeguards an individual’s right to participate in the public debate through political expression and political association. See, Buckley, 424 U.S. at 15. McCutcheon v. F.E.C., 12-536, 2014 WL 1301866 (U.S. Apr. 2, 2014) (Emphasis added).

It is, however, a basic First Amendment principle that freedom of speech prohibits the government from telling people what they must say.” Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc., 547 U.S. 47

(now don’t we all know that the IARDC would love to own and control this Blog–a Blog that attracts thousands of visitors each month?)

At the heart of the First Amendment lies the principle that each person should decide for himself or herself the ideas and beliefs deserving of expression, consideration, and adherence.” Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622

(“The government may not … compel the endorsement of ideas that it approves.”). Were it enacted as a direct regulation of speech, the Policy Requirement would plainly violate the First Amendment. The question is whether the Government may nonetheless impose that requirement as a condition on the receipt of federal funds”.Agency for Int’l Dev. v. Alliance for Open Soc’y Int’l, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2321

“[G]overnment has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.” Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 535 U.S. 564

Note that the cases we cite are all SCOTUS or US Sup. Ct. Cases.

What does the ARDC cite in its brief in response?

The ARDC ignores the issues of the First Amendment, and just say the case is all about the disciplinary proceeding (no) so the IARDC should have immunity, a probate case that Ken and I were personally involved in (no) so the GAL’s should have immunity.

The gravamen of their complaint was that they
were prevented from engaging in the practice of law in the matter of Estate ofMary Sykes, No. 09 P 4585, filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, CountyDepartment, Probate Division. R. 1, at ¶5; R. 39, Exhibit (“Ex.”) E.

 

They of course, mention the letter to Dr. Patel (who did nothing with the letter and just put it in the file), as follows

Ditkowsky sent a letter to Mary Sykes’ doctor and falsely represented
that he had been contacted to represent Mary’s interests and would be
requesting the doctor’s medical records as soon as he filed his appearance in the guardianship proceedings. R. 32, Ex. 1, at 2; R. 39, Ex. E, at 3

 

I assume that they are hoping the 7th Circuit won’t read the letter because it uses the words “after I appear” for Mary Sykes plainly and clearly.  Of course, the ARDC Tribunal ignored those words and claimed that Ken falsely state he did appear in the letter.  Remember, if you work for the ARDC, never, never post that letter. Shhhhh.  Someone might realize you cover up inconvenient facts and truths to get what you want.

The truth is also not important to them in whose blog is whose:

Farenga enclosed copies of pages from Denison’s internet blog,
ProbateSharks.com, in which Denison printed writings by Ditkowsky that accused Farenga and Stern of criminal conduct and “gross improprieties” in their role as guardians ad litem for Mary Sykes. Id., at A3-4.

 

Everyone knows that the Probate Sharks blog is NOT my blog.  It belongs to Ken Cooper, pursuant to Whois.net–the official site for ownership of blogs.  No matter, the facts do NOT stop the ARDC.

Interestingly enough, on pp. 28-29 of their brief, the ARDC skips the entire jurisdiction requirement–Summons, Service of Petition upon the Respondent 14 days advance notice of time, date and place of hearing, and upon the elderly sisters.  They just say “guardianship has to be in the best interests of the ward”.  Okay, as determined by whom?  The Illinois state government?  The 18th floor of the Daley Center? What about our state legislature and US constitution providing due process, a summons and proper complaint to a defendant?  Do we now arrest people and drag them into star chambers and off with their heads?  Is the ARDC sanctioning jurisdictionless guardianships without notice and without an opportunity to be heard and to object? Circa 1780 we were promised these rights were inalienable and would endure forever, now, in one swoop, the18th floor takes away these rights and the ARDC skips the rights in its responsive brief and says we don’t have a US and Illinois constitution when and if certain court appointed attorneys are involved.

Do you think that the ARDC, in filing this brief, could be less caring about seniors and wards of the State of Illinois, giving purchase to the miscreants of the 18th floor who will determine if and when anyone in Cook County needs a guardianship, without notice, and without due process?

They for sure do not address the human and civil rights violations in doing so, and that violates US treaty law on Elder Abuse and Financial Exploitation, which is not only rampant in the US (see GAO reports published on NASGA website), but also apparently elsewhere in the world.  Seems to be an universal problem that miscreants can’t keep their mitts of of a ward’s honey pot.

Another interesting quote from the ARDC brief:

The ARDC is the body created by the Illinois Supreme Court for the
purposes of the administrative supervision of the registration of, and
disciplinary proceedings affecting, members of the Illinois bar. Ill. S. Ct. R. 751(a). Jerome Larkin, as Administrator, is the principal executive officer of the Commission, having been appointed to that position by the Commissioners with the approval of the Illinois Supreme Court. Ill. S. Ct. R. 751(e)(1), 752.

 

But try and call them and ask why no one at the ARDC files Ethics Reports according to the Illinois Ethics Act of 2009 mandated by government agencies, and Janet Phelan, who has done so will tell you that she was told the ARDC was a “private entity”, not subject to mandates for Illinois agencies.  So, on one hand the ARDC wants immunity, so it puts in its briefs it is a government agency that gets 11th Amendment immunity.  BUT when you call them on the carpet for not following the mandates of Illinois Ethics laws for manadatory reporting of all attorneys and management, suddenly it is not a government agency.

I want to know why the IARDC isn’t be guardianized itself for clearly having MPD or Multiple Personality Disorder?

Even more interesting is the claim of “litigation privilege” by the ARDC on p.22 of its brief–a claim neither Denison nor Ditkowsky were able to make during their trials:

Illinois law provides an absolute litigation privilege in favor of
attorneys, which protects anything said or written in the course of legal proceedings relative to claims made in the lawsuit. As noted by this Court:
Illinois law recognizes an absolute litigation privilege
which protects anything said or written in the course of a
legal proceeding. The only qualification to this privilege is
that the communication pertain to the litigation. This
requirement is not applied strictly, and the
communication need not be confined to the specific issues
involved in the litigation . . . the rationale for the privilege
is to secure for attorneys as officers of the court the
utmost freedom in representing clients. The absolute
privilege is afforded even when malice is assumed to
have motivated the attorney. All doubts are to be
resolved in favor of finding that the privilege applies.
Steffes v. Stephan Co., 144 F.3d 1070, 1074 (7th Cir. 1998).

 

Isn’t it quite odd that the ARDC claims this privilege for itself, but it does not allow Denison or Ditkowsky to assert it, because in fact all Denison did was write this blog and tell the truth, and all Ditkowsky did was attempt to investigate a case upon which he did not appear in.

Here we go again, the ARDC claiming it IS a state agency and therefore entitiled to immunity:

Defendant Larkin, in his position as Administrator of the ARDC, is a
state government actor, and this Court has held that the ARDC is the legal equivalent of the State. Johnson v. Supreme Court of Illinois, 165 F.3d 1140, 1141 (7th Cir. 1999); see also Bilal v. Wolf, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55579, 55596-97 (N.D. Ill. 2009).

 

But then why don’t they Ethics Report as mandated by law?  And why don’t they publish salaries, as 99% of all other state agencies do to ensure that bribes aren’t being taken?

All good questions for the 7th cir. to figure out.

Next the ARDC on pp. 41 argues against an injunction on the grounds, such conditions are unlikely to happen again.  But the Sykes case is going on, and so are other cases that Denison blogs on, and she gets told in court, after one of the attorneys points it out to the judge and makes a request, to stop blogging.  Stopping court watchers from blogging and taking notes continues to this day on the 18th floor and every time it happened in the Sykes case, AS, CF and PS all asked or agreed with the court’s decision to prevent blogging by Denison.  Atty Ken Ditkowsky continues to write emails, faxes and letters to the authorities about the Sykes case–what about all of that is not over?  The US Supreme Ct has made it clear that note taking is a constitutional right in numerous decisions with which Tim Evans and Sheriff Dart do not agree.  Denison has asked them repeatedly to instruct their deputies, allow the public laptops and tablets to blog and note take efficiently–all denied.  Never responded to–except perhaps by Sheriff Dart refusing to issue Denison an attorney ID!  I have FOIA’d the reason for that and they have asked for an extension of time.  I faxed in the earlier requests and they were not responded to, so the last one I dropped off in person and asked to deliver it to counsel personally.  I suspect that some employees probably didn’t like the FOIA and it would conveniently fall into a circular file, but I digress.

The IARDC then cites the Palmisano case, and basically says that all of you peons out there who are not in “the club” or have a law license are stupid and need to be protected.  Get a load of this quote they liked:

Indiscriminate accusations of dishonesty, by contrast, do
not help cleanse the judicial system of miscreants yet do
impair its functioning–for judges do not take to the talk
shows to defend themselves, and few litigants can
separate accurate from spurious claims of judicial
misconduct.  In re Palmissano

 

That’s right, it’s now official. The public is stupid, you don’t know your constitutional rights, and therefore, the ARDC has to strictly control the speech of Denison and Ditkowsky because Schmeidel, Farenga and Stern have all acted as saints in the Sykes case.  Gimma a break.  The public CAN read the Illinois Probate Act and follow it closely. The pubic knows when there is no valid service of a summons and complaint there is NO JURISDICTION and the proceeding is fake or under “color of law.”

Many probate victims, I have found, after being fleeced of life, liberty and property read and know the Illinois Probate Act, the Elder Abuse Laws, backwards and forwards, in and out. They may be terrorized and beleaguered, but they are NOT stupid.

Next it can be noted on p. 45 the ARDC admits:

While it is not clear from the plaintiffs’ complaint that they are alleging a First Amendment retaliation claim, the arguments in their appellate brief appear to focus on allegations of being deprived of their First Amendment rights to blog, email, send letters,
call for investigations or communicate with each other.

 

Note that while we are not entitled to an injunction because past conduct will not dictate future harm, the ARDC admits that the complaint is based upon the defendants preventing Ken and I from blogging, sending emails, faxes and other communications to third parties (family members and friends of Mary, the authorities and other probate victims). This blog has not stopped.  Our communications have not ceased.  The ARDC filed disciplinary proceedings against us to stop our communications to the authorities and others.  The repeatedly struck and ignored motions, facts, witnesses and evidence that our communications spoke the truth.  We alleged a cover up and the cover up continues unabated and our communications and investigations continue.  We are clearly entitled to an injunction.

From my brief filed yesterday, written by Ken and edited by myself:

Main premise (fn 1)

1Gentile cited by defendants on page 29 of their brief provides no comfort for the
defendants as it points out that:
“The prohibition against vague regulations of speech is based in part on the need
to eliminate the impermissible risk of discriminatory enforcement, Kolender v.
Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357-358, 361, 103 S.Ct. 1855, 1858-1859, 1860, 75
L.Ed.2d 903 (1983); Smith v. Goguen, 415 U.S. 566, 572-573, 94 S.Ct. 1242,
1246-1247, 39 L.Ed.2d 605 (1974), for history shows that speech is suppressed
when either the speaker or the message is critical of those who enforce the law.
The question is not whether discriminatory enforcement occurred here, and we
assume it did not, but whether the Rule is so imprecise that discriminatory
enforcement is a real possibility. The inquiry is of particular relevance when one
of the classes most affected by the regulation is the criminal defense bar, which
has the professional mission to challenge actions of the State. Petitioner, for
instance, succeeded in preventing the conviction of his client, and the speech in
issue involved criticism of the government. “ Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501
U.S. 1030, 1051, 111 S. Ct. 2720, 2732, 115 L. Ed. 2d 888 (1991)
Thus, Gentile makes it abundantly clear that being critical of judicial officials is an act protected by the First Amendment. Larkin thus grossly exceeds his authority, as even the Supreme Court of Illinois lacks the authority to limit an attorney’s 18 USCA § 4 duty, his right to petition his government and or complain of corruption. Without delegation of authority, Larkin’s conduct is ultra vires and no matter how viewed he enjoys no immunity to deny a fellow citizen of his/her civil liberties and the right to speak out.

In particular, the defendants offer no authority or delegation to regulate Ms. Denison’s blog, or the content thereof, or their continuous attempts to silence Ditkowsky’s communications and contributions to other blogs, including Denison’s.2

2During the opening of Denison’s trial, incredulously the IARDC litigating attorney
compared Ms. Denison’s Blog to “shouting fire in a crowded theatre”– in an absurd attempt to bring it under the guise of “strict scrutiny”. Plaintiff Denison’s response to those assertions have been 1) don’t shoot the messenger; 2) the blog is not subversive dissent to be crushed by US authorities; 3) don’t blame the media for its content and 4) when offended, simply avert thy eyes
.

The regulation of attorneys’ speech is limited-it applies only to speech that is
substantially likely to have a materially prejudicial effect; it is neutral as to
points of view, applying equally to all attorneys participating in a pending
case; and it merely postpones the attorneys’ comments until after the trial.
While supported by the substantial state interest in preventing prejudice to an
adjudicative proceeding by those who have a duty to protect its integrity, the Rule
is limited on its face to preventing only speech having a substantial likelihood of
materially prejudicing that proceeding. Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 U.S.
1030,

7Denison is being subjected to unique disciplinary proceedings in which it appears that transcripts have been altered – the IARDC refuses to provide the audio voice recordings that would verify the accuracy of the transcripts. Ditkowsky has been suspended from the practice of law for 4 years destroying a successful law practice of more than fifty years in duration. The injury to the plaintiffs foreseeably continues. All the injuries were caused by the plaintiff’s reporting to authorities that a senior citizen’s million dollars in gold coins had been reported removed from a safety deposit box without prior court order and was never inventoried by the plenary guardian, that a senior citizen had five unreported trips to an emergency room and lost 10% of her body weight, etc. All of the foregoing were deemed by the defendant IARDC to be
unethical communications, despite the fact that all were supported by affidavits by witnesses to the actual behaviors. None of the witnesses to the felonies and misdemeanors have been allowed to testify in court, not even in the Kangaroo Court of the IARDC . The ARDC systematically and strenuously bans adverse witnesses, motions, adverse discovery and any facts or motions it deems unhelpful to its case. The Tribunals it uses are not independent to the ARDC and Denison has witnessed conversations between her Tribunal members and staff at the ARDC. The ARDC
houses, selects and assists all Tribunal members at all times. Further, in contravention to the Illinois Ethics Reporting Act of 2009, no ARDC attorney or management files any Ethics report, as mandated by Illinois law. All of this embarrassing and crucial information is published at all times on Pltf Denison’s blog.

So, read the briefs and decide for yourselves who you want to be the official attorney censors–Jerome Larkin, who has “funny” property records, or Adam Stern, who has a $60k unexplained tax lien, Cynthia Farenga who has a husband with 100 property transactions, or Judge Stuart, and her changed testimony and altered transcript the ARDC refuses to provide the audio to, applying the whitewash brush again by saying “file an affidavit” and we’ll consider the affidavit.

Remember, it is the official position of the ARDC to insult the public’s intelligence. My tribunal insulted Kathie Bakken an older disabled woman with a walker by saying sour grapes you don’t understand, and Yolanda Bakken, an 85 year old plus woman who is frail and has mobility issues, again, family member, sour grapes to you–also insulting their intelligence.

The ARDC position is they will decide the facts, they will protect an attorney code of silence, they want to shut down this blog and the US govt will tell you what to think and do.  1985 was a banner year for them. They read the book and believed it and thought it was good–for them.

Joanne

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

From Ken Ditkowsky–Writ of the Month to Supreme Court Press, questions answered

Answers to your questions:

  1. You have my permission to publish or use in any way you desire the answers to my questions.

Operation Greylord.

                As an active practicing attorney in Cook County, Illinois, I had several occasions to appear before Judges who were targeted by the Operation Greylord scandal.         This scandal rocked the legal profession as it exposed not only the extent of the corruption but the venality.     The Chief Judge of the Chancery Division, Judge Shields, was charged with accepting a $200.00 bribe.    Dave Shields had had a reputation as a ‘reformer’ and had been expected to be a future leader of the new era of trust that was about to commence in the Circuit Court of Cook County.     Fifteen Judges, dozens of attorneys, dozens of court personnel etc. went to jail; additional judges quietly retired, allowing them to avoid facing charges.  

                The most venal of the judges was R. Holtzer.     He was the President of his religious organization and managed to associate himself with all the right causes.    His wife was a supervising Insurance Agent for the Prudential Insurance Company and in fact supervised several of my clients.  As luck would have it, I accepted an injunction suit that was assigned to Judge Holtzer. The facts were uncontested and in my mind, my clients’ right to an injunction was guaranteed by black letter law.     An entire community was being cut off by certain City of Chicago construction so that from approximately 6:00 A.M. to 10:00 A.M. and 3:00 PM to 7:00 PM they, and most emergency vehicles, would have extreme difficulty in accessing their homes.   

                Immediately after the case was assigned, I had a visitor.    Mrs. Holtzer came to my office and informed me that I needed several hundred thousand dollars of life insurance.     As I had not just fallen off the turnip truck, I politely invited her to leave the office, pointing out to her that my insurance agent was a Mr. Gross, an agent under her supervision; I would discuss my insurance needs with him.     I then made two telephone calls.    The first call was to a Treasury Agent who was assigned to the Intelligence unit, and the second was to a personal friend who at that time just happened to be the Special Agent in Charge of the FBI office in Miami, Florida.     I was almost livid with anger and had to blow off steam somewhere.    My two friends were willing listeners.     I knew that my refusal to purchase insurance meant that when the case came up for hearing the next morning, I was a dead bag loser.      I prepared my Notice of Appeal and docketing statement.

                As scheduled, the next morning we appeared before Judge Holtzer.    The Judge was so very nice that butter would not melt in his mouth.     He listened with great interest to our arguments, asked some questions and then with pursed judicial demeanor announced that he was dismissing the case as we have an adequate remedy at law.     The Construction would only continue on for a few months and the Construction company had posted a bond and therefore *****.      I waited for the order of dismissal to be entered and served everyone in sight with a copy of the Notice of Appeal.     I then went down to the clerks’ office and ordered an expedited record.       Thereafter I went to the Appellate Court clerks’ office, paid my docketing fee and filed the docketing statement.     

                When I returned to my office, a messenger from the Corporation Counsel’s office was waiting for me with a document entitled “Confession of Error”!     The City of Chicago was acknowledging the appropriateness of the Petition for Injunctive relief and was obviating the need for an appeal!

                Judge Holtzer was not the only Judge engaging in such tactics.   I appeared before many of the judges but was not affected except in two additional cases.     The rulings in those cases were very strange.      The lawyers on the other side of each of these cases were very defensive and neither could look me in the eye.      I have no concrete evidence that there was anything wrong or that any of the judges or lawyers were corrupt.

                The bulk of the Greylord problems involved the traffic court.     It was not uncommon to hear that if you hired a particular lawyer, no matter how serious the traffic charge was he had a 100% success rate.     Of course, if you had parking tickets, etc., seeing a particular lawyer and/or a particular assistant corporate counsel, would cause the ordinance violations to go away.     Similarly, in the criminal courts, certain lawyers had magic powers and their clients fared much better than those of ordinary lawyers.      The cottage industry of corruption was exposed by the United States of America in subsequent enforcement procedures undertaken in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Current Corruption

Today corruption is not open and notorious as it once was.      For instance, in 1961 when I first appeared before the Bar, corruption was worn like a badge of honor.     We had two competing Courts – the Circuit Court (essentially a Court run by Mr. Nash and Mr. Kelly – Democratic Party power houses) and the Superior Court (essentially run by the Republicans).     

The Court had some very fine judges.    Judge Lupe as an example had the reputation for honor and honesty.    Lawyers who appeared before him – win, lose or draw – lauded him and win lose or draw reported their cases had received a fair trial. Judge Covelli had a well-deserved reputation for his sense of humor. In one case, the foreign born parties to a lawsuit lapsed into their native language.   No interpreter was present or called for and Covelli, without missing a beat, allowed each to testify in his/her native language. Covelli’s translation was “He says ‘yes’; she says ‘no’”.   In another case, I and my opponent discovered that there was no resolution possible in the case because of the ‘Rule Against Perpetuities’.   Covelli ordered the sheriff to lock us in the Jury Room until we came to a settlement.   When we discovered he was pushing the limits, it took us two hours, but we did reach agreement which was found satisfactory by both of our opposing clients.      Most importantly every Chancery Judge had a sense of humor and in non-political cases – always provided a level playing field.     You can name these judges on the fingers of one hand.       The Court employed Masters in Chancery.      The Masters were a world apart.      Certain fixer firms abounded, and if they appeared as your opponent, a smart lawyer resigned or prepared for an appeal.   

Some judges were openly soliciting bribes.    One called me on the telephone at home and his words to me were “the bid is five”.      I had no idea why he was calling or what he meant.    I soon found out.       Another ruled that the Pythagorean Theorem formula [1] was invalid.    This judge, after I served a Notice of Appeal, was informed by his son, a high school freshman, that he was wrong and would be embarrassed.    The Judge actually came to my home and begged me to withdraw the appeal.     He presented a settlement offer that I could not refuse.    

After Greylord nothing really changed except that the fixer firms changed their names and the open solicitation for bribes was curtailed.     I say curtailed because it takes a new form today.   Gone is the white envelope full of dollars.      As Judges are elected, many have campaign fund accounts and the bribe is a campaign contribution.      As an elected judge faces a retention ballot periodically, rhetorically he/ she has to have money to protect his position; however, there are more teeth in the mouth of the average hen than judges not being retained.     A wife or child of a judge might legally receive a salary for being the chairman of the campaign committee or an employee in a not disinfested firm.

I’ve detailed in e-mails to the United States Treasury, law enforcement and other interested people a paper on how judges and other members of the political elite receive bribes.       The White envelope full of cash is obsolete.      I had one case in which the Judge’s wife was hired during the case by the defendant entity.     In fact it was day of trial.      In a case in which the Director of the Illinois Department of Revenue was an interested party, one of the investigators for the IDR furnished me a copy of the Supreme Court of Illinois’ opinion a one full week before it was announced to the public.     She informed me that the opinion had been written by *****, an attorney in the IDR office.     (I never verified her statement but, word for word, the document I received was filed as the opinion of the Court!)       I did notice that as each judge, retired he was appointed by the Illinois Department of Revenue as a special attorney in a particular complicated tax case.    This all may be coincidence and unrelated to the decision as reached.

The guardianship cases about which I complained, for which the Illinois ARDC and the Illinois Supreme Court pulled my license, present a whole smorgasbord of examples.    Gloria Sykes reported that there were unusual campaign contributions by ****’s husband to a political figure.     ***** reported that this husband was involved in more than a hundred real estate transactions involving estates.       Indeed, the official real estate transaction records of Cook County reveal unusual mortgage transactions   as well as transactions in which one party allegedly in disrepute purchases a parcel of land and then turns around and resells it to a political figure who is in a position to do “some good” to the aforesaid party at a bargain price.

Your inquiry is whether or not Greylord created any change in the climate of corruption in Cook County.      The answer is yes.     The system is just as venal as it ever was, however, the transactions are much more subtle and much harder to prove.     If I wish to sell my home to Judge x for ½ of its value, who is to tell me I cannot.     You may assume that the verdict that I receive from Judge x next January is related, but, ****.        Judge x’s daughter is a very bright articulate young woman.     Why should I discriminate against her and not hire her as my personal assistant?      

Let me make it very clear.     We have some bad people in Cook County who are judges, but, we also have many who are dedicated public servants who try to do a good job.      For instance, we have several judges who work obscenely long hours and actually read the law, attempt to understand the facts, and go out of their way so that each litigant enjoys a level playing field.       In my fifty plus years before the Bar, I’ve appeared before hundreds of judges who have made me proud of my profession and more importantly proud to appear before them.     I’ve had opponents who I’d give my right arm for and they for me.      The vast majority of lawyers and judges whom I’ve appeared before (or with) are honorable men and women whom I number among my friends.    However, there is a minority who are the nadir of the profession.     It is indeed fortunate that this collection of miscreants appeared in the twilight of my career rather than in the beginning.      (In my early days I was pugnacious)

I hope that this answered your question.      A lawyer is trained to answer every question with a firm “maybe!”     

Problem judges?????

   

In answer to your question requesting my opinion as to whether the judges who suspended me are problem judges, I have to make the following statement:     The Judges of the Supreme Court of Illinois are elected.    They are the judges who suspended me.     What they did was to affirm the review panel of the IARDC.      My research on these panels of the IARDC suggests to me that if the IARDC decided that red was green, the panels would attorn and each panel in turn would agree. .       The Supreme Court seems to rubber stamp most of the proceedings of the IARDC.        However, it also appears that an unusual decision is from time to time published.        I refer you to Karavidas 2013 IL 115767 (page 15), and Peel v ARDC 496 US 91 (page 10, 33, 34, 38).      It should be noted that the seven Judges of the Illinois Supreme Court, like all attorneys, have taken an oath to protect the Constitution of Illinois and the United States of America.     It is quite obvious that Mr. Larkin, his commission, his lawyers and his rubber stamp panels have assaulted the First Amendment.      Article 1 Section 12 of the Illinois Constitution directs the entities of Illinois including the Supreme Court to provide a remedy for all wrongs perpetrated in the state.   It therefore follows that the judges of the Supreme Court of Illinois have been specifically directed to protect citizens from grievous wrongs that have been promulgated against the elderly, disabled, and the whistleblowers such as yours truly who protest elder cleansing.

The Sykes case.

 

Illinois in its statutes has incorporated all the protections necessary to protect senior citizens from exploitation and abuse.      735 ILCS 110/5 guarantees that the rights under the First Amendment and Article 1 section 4 of the Illinois Constitution are FIRST PRINCIPLES!      Section 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3 points out that guardianships are not death sentences, but are only tools to be used to provide healthy, wealthy, happy and useful lives for persons subject to the draconian remedy of guardianship.     Guardianship is a thankless task (and intended to be so) that only well-meaning and well intentioned people would undertake.

My concern with the Mary Sykes case was the allegation and the proof that developed that convinced me that she was railroaded into a guardianship so that her hard earned assets could be expropriated by her older daughter and she could be eliminated.     I refer to this final solution as “ involuntary assisted suicide.”     I knew Mary as I represented her previously in a jury trial.     I know from my experience that the big D is progressive and does not suddenly appear.      I also knew that Mary’s older daughter was married to an individual who suffered from chronic unemployment.    He just could not keep a job.    

As I state in my petition after Mary’s family contacted me, I started my FRCP 11 investigation.    This investigation required me to find out why Dr. Patel’s report was 180 degrees different than the Report of Dr. Amdur.       To my surprise Adam Stern called me and threatened me.       When Stern could not frighten me, Peter Schmiedel called and he reiterated the threats.     (I opened the speaker phone so that my wife could hear each conversation).     They then filed a Supreme Court Rule 137 motion against me.    Rule 137 deals with false pleadings – I had not even inadvertently had contact with any pleading or any proceeding involving the case of In re: Mary Sykes 09 P 4585.

Now I was hooked – Even though there was no jurisdiction I had to address the threats.    To my surprise, Judge Connors found me guilty of a Rule 137 violation.    Exactly what violation it was has been never disclosed, but, the IARDC and these miscreants do not apparently have to be specific.     I am accused by the IARDC of making false statements, yet not a single statement ever been disclosed.     Whatever the false statements are only the IARDC knows!    

Lawyers hold a special position of trust.     We are not robots, and our loyalty is to Lady Justice.     We do not aid and abet criminal conduct and we certainly do not participate in it.     (Maybe I should say – most lawyers!).      When injustice or wrongs occur as citizens, not only do we morally have a duty to address these wrongs, but our oath to defend the Constitution (and 18 USCA 4) require each of us (lawyers) to report to law enforcement the criminal activity.     

I had received threats!      Honest lawyers do not threaten – they do!     Why should Adam Stern threaten me?    Why would he be interested in preventing me from investigating a guardianship?       The answer is obvious and I took the information that I knew and informed law enforcement.     (Gloria Sykes had written a long complaint to the IARDC complaining of the fact her mother was being abused and isolated.    She further complained of the theft of her and her mother’s property and the highly suspect and improper actions of Judge Connors, Cynthia Farenga, Adam Stern, et al.)       I wrote requesting an investigation.

As I dug into the Sykes case, I discovered that I had stepped into a quagmire.     What was going was unbelievable!      The family of Alice Gore reported that their mother was also isolated, stripped of her assets, abused and Attorney Miriam Solo had orchestrated the removal of 29 teeth from Ms. Gore’s mouth so as to mine her gold filings!     

The IARDC Cover up   (The IARDC is the respondent)

 

The Appellate Court decision finding that the Rule 137 proceedings against me were conducted without jurisdiction was described by Adam Stern as a technicality.      Cynthia Farenga, the original Guardian ad Litem was extremely upset,   as not only was Judge Connors rendered helpless to stop me from exercising my First Amendment Rights but I was now communicating with the Justice Department, Senator Kirk, and more significantly I was pointing out that a breach of fiduciary relationship was a taxable event.     What this meant was that the ‘loot’ from the elder cleansing was taxable income.     Worse yet it was to be taxed as ordinary income rates.

As Blogs were picking up my statements and republishing them, the miscreants understood that it was possible that the Department of the Treasury would assign one of its employees in the intelligence division to examine the finances in the Sykes case.     It also was apparent that Gloria Sykes and a bunch of her mother’s friends and neighbors were letter writers.   They also were waging a vocal protest to the IARDC and law enforcement over the railroading of Mary Sykes into a guardianship wherein her liberty and property could be pirated.      Scott Evans, a former Federal Employee with the CIA, disclosed that he had actually tracked down Mary and found her in an adult day care facility in Naperville, Illinois.      He described the horrid conditions and how Mary had absolutely no stimulation or contact with “alive” people.      He described the other residents as “zombies!”        What upset Judge Connors, and the miscreants was the fact that he chose to disclose this fact after Peter Schmiedel informed the Court of the “wonderful progress” Mary was making.

Mr. Larkin and the IARDC desired to silence me and in particular wanted to stop the flow of letters and e-mails coming from me.     The “safe harbor” letters to Farenga, and Stern were particularly offensive in that I offered to leave them out of any Civil Rights that I might file either for myself or a client if they just did the job that they were required to do.      This job required them to formally report to the Court and allow it appear of record some uncontroverted facts:

  1. The guardian was insolvent prior to her appointment, yet today she exhibits all the attributes of wealth including expensive jewelry, lavish parties, expensive vacations, massive remodeling on her home etc.     The big change in the fortunes of the plenary guardian is that she is not a pensioner having retired from her educator position.
  2. Mary Sykes had a safety deposit box (as a co-tenant with Gloria).   This box was accessed by the guardian, the contents removed and no one item was inventoried.    This box contained a large number of gold coins.    These coins were those that Mary and Gloria inherited from Mary’s husband and one Albert Biddy.    The coins have a value in excess of a million dollars.
  3. Mary’s two siblings and her younger daughter complained that they could not contact Mary.    Telephone contact was forbidden by the plenary guardian.
  4. Mary’s contact with other friends and neighbors was cut off.    Even her beloved garden club was forbidden her.
  5. Frequent visits to the emergency room by Mary were noted, including one visit in occasioned by Mary losing 10% of her body weight.     Mary had trouble swallowing – the guardian just neglected to get her medical help.

I suggested that either of the GALs report to the Court that I had informed them of these facts and they could not verify any of them if such made them more comfortable.     When I received no reply I reported this fact to law enforcement.      I demanded an Honest, intelligent and comprehensive investigation.     See Farenga letter.    Farenga’s letters are reproduced in Appendix P.

Stripped to its essentials that IARDC complaint against me is that I complied with FRCP and started an investigation before filing a lawsuit, and when attempts to silence were promulgated I wrote to law enforcement and others a complaint the outlined some uncontroverted facts, to wit:

  1. The guardianship of Mary violated the Rule of Law and in particular the Constitution in that:
    1. No jurisdiction was obtained as Mary was not served with process that complied with the statutory requirements.    The file indicates that there was no serve on her at all.
    2. No notice of any kind was given to the relatives of Mary Sykes including her two sisters – this is also jurisdictional.
  2. Every protection to which Mary was entitled to was ignored.

It is respectfully submitted that the respondent and in particular its director made it clear in their cross-examination of me that this entire proceeding was brought because they could not intimidate me into abandoning my responsibilities as a human being.      The punished was augmented to four years because I showed no remorse.    (An IARDC attorney actually asked me if I was remorseful for writing to the Attorney General of the United States disclosing this elder cleansing of Mary Sykes).   

Effect on me of the Spurious Charges that threatened my livihood.

 

At first I could not believe that any State of Illinois entity would violate the policy of the State as recited in 735 ILCS 110/5; however, I did know that Illinois was the 2 nd most corrupt State in the Union.     Illinois had two governors in Federal prison!      Students could not name 5 governors of the State who had not been jailbirds in the past Century.        It was difficult to pick up a newspaper and not read about some member of the political elite who was not in some sort of criminal proceeding as a defendant.

In my previous half century as a lawyer I had crossed swords with other corrupt political people and I even was the potential victim of a ‘hit.’      The miscreant was apprehended in the alley behind my home.      A neighbor saw him lurking in the alley and called the police.     He confessed to his purpose.     I recognized the current miscreants a scavengers who preyed on the elderly and the disabled.       As Gloria Sykes informed me that all she wanted was her mother to be free from bondage and returned to the life she (Mary) loved I figured that having secured the ‘loot’ the miscreants would consider me a minor nuisance and avoid me.     

Ms. Black who was the IARDC attorney had much more on her mind.      She even tried to intimidate Ms. Sykes and as noted in the appendix in answers to discover pointed out that the administrator had filed his complaint against me without a scintilla of evidence that I had even made a statement that was inaccurate.      This became serious when I was denied the opportunity to know what statements I made that were false, and even though the file of case 09 P 4585 vindicated every statement I made (or any of the friends and family of Mary Sykes had made) my subpoena for the file was quashed.    Not only was the charges brought against me a secret, but any evidence that might inadvertently demonstrate the perfidy of the proceeding was not to be allowed to get within a country mile of the proceeding.

What was particularly interesting and disturbing was the fact that the Supreme Court of the United States had ruled on the issues I was facing and pointed out that the First Amendment protected even outright lies if they were content related.      Thus, argued the respondent you could sell violent videos to children, picket funerals of dead hero, falsely claim to be a mental of honor winner, however you could report criminal behavior of judicial officials.      So disingenuous was the proceeding that the IARDC attorney made statements concerning a fifty year old Sawyer case (decided by the Supreme Court) that were contradicted in the last paragraphs of the opinion.      The ruling of the Court was 100% contrary to the statement by an ARDC attorney.      After I quoted the ruling word for word as stated by the court future statements by the IARDC do not cite the case.     Sawyer unless over-ruled should cause the Supreme Court of the United States to reverse the decision of the Illinois Supreme Court that affects me.

 

Final thoughts

 

All my life, I’ve enjoyed the practice of law.     The attorneys that I’ve had dealings with were wonderful.     By accident I learned of the credo.     It was very simple.     In one particularly hotly requested case my opponent took me aside and stated:

“I am your only friend in this courtroom.      Your client is fickle, my client hates you with a passion, and the judge thinks we are both candidates for Dunning (state insane facility) and in particular he hates us because we are keeping him from the track – therefore I am your only friend – treat me well!”

It was true.    

As I stated previously most judges had a sense of humor and/or were very personable and desirous of providing a fair trial.      I was not unusual for a judge to try to level the playing field when one side or the other had an unfair advantage.      A young novice attorney was treated with respect, but, an experience trial judge would try to make the nervous lawyer a little more comfortable.      On several occasions when I was in my first year in practice the judge would tell a joke and make me laugh.      On another occasion the Judge took me and my opponent out to lunch.      To be candid in the 1960 up until Operation Greylord disclosed the full extent of the corruption in Cook County the majority of honest judges made their courtrooms businesslike and productive.      Court proceedings were challenging and living!     

One judge was faced with a problem.     He knew both lawyers (one of them was me).     The case was a one of first impression and the issue was one that no matter how he decided there would be an appeal.     The facts were complex but the basic facts upon which the issue was to be decided boiled down to whether or not the ‘due on sale clause’ would be applicable to a 2 nd sale of the property.      His question to the two lawyers was:   “Who wants to the appellant in this appeal?”      We both knew that the Appellant had a slight advantage.       I and my opponent both indicated that we wanted to be appellant.    The judge took a coin from his pocket and looked at my opponent and said: “you call it!”

The Appellate court also had a sense of humor – they reversed the trial court order ruling that there was some undisclosed factual dispute!        

I promised Mr.   Larkin and the IARDC that if I was suspended or disbarred he would have my full attention.     He has it.      I’ve continued to write to law enforcement, contribute to the blogs fighting elder cleansing and demanding that law enforcement carry out its duty of enforcing the laws.      I’ve suggested that when an elder is railroaded into a guardianship, isolated from her family, her friends, her activities, and her assets are forfeit such is a felony.     I’ve therefore reported this criminal activity to law enforcement and urged every victim and the victim’s family members to report the miscreant activity to law enforcement including the names of those who aid and abet the terrible actions.         I’ve also aided and abetted as many family members of victims of elder cleansing in contacting to law enforcement and seeking legal redress for the victim and his/her family.

On the legal front Ms. Denison and I have filed a 1983 action against Larkin and the guardians, I’ve assisted Ms. Denison in a copyright infringement action against the IARDC and its attorneys who have infringed on her copyright.     I’ve encouraged Attorney Amu to contact Supreme Court press and have it set up and publish his Petition for Cert to the Supreme Court.     Mr. Amu in my opinion has solid evidence a racial nexus in the IARDC’s assault on his First Amendment Rights.      

In Summary, I am a Citizen of the United States of America.     I believe in the credo of America and the rights enumerated by the Bill of Rights are sacred to me.     I am not a Pollyanna but I do believe that I personally had a duty to stand up for the principles that are represented by America Constitution.      Justice Douglas and Justice Black have enunciated my personal views as to what the interpretation that must be placed on the Bill of Rights.        If our democracy is as we planned it, it should withstand all the unpopular opinions including those of miscreants.     In a word:   “I may disagree with your opinion, but I will fight to the death to preserve your right to express it”       Thus, unless I am a hypocrite and untrue to me I have no choice but the fight off the Assault on my personal First Amendment Rights and fight like the devil to bring justice to a little old lady who was railroaded into a guardianship, stripped of her liberty, human rights, civil rights and property.     If I do less I dishonor me, my heritage, my parents, and most importantly you.    On December 8, 1941 my father and his five brothers gave up everything and enlisted in the Armed forces.    How can I run from criminals who are so cowardly as to victimize the elderly and the disabled!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[1] A squared plus b squared equal c squared.

From Ken and Judy Ditkowsky–where is the investigation on health care fraud?

To: everyone
Subject: Re: Investigation on Health Management Association
Date: Jul 27, 2014 12:45 PM
 
 We have a very serious problem with government corruption and in particular the health care industry.   Representative Speier is a hypocrite of the worst kind in that she is fully aware of the problem in California and elsewhere is enforcement of the existing laws.   The investigation has to be done by law enforcement with an eye toward prosecution of the miscreants.   
 
This morning I listened to a representative of [warmongering group engaging in bad karma] — see my new peace blog–www.uspeacemilitary.wordpress.com for this discussion.
 
The partisan defense of one form of corruption by attempting to divert attention to another government corruption is  disingenuous and unhelpful.   There is no appropriate defense of any form of government corruption.  Government is created to serve the people – not to enhance and defend the career of favored members of the political elite.    Like [group X's] use of humanitarian donations for criminal enterprises certain governmental entities use the humanitarian government funds designated for the care of the sick, disabled, and those who are in need of help to protect a small group of political benefactors – like the hospice and nursing home operators.    These same governmental criminals look the other way in exchange for unauthorized remunerations including vote fraud as they pontificate their carefully conceived diversions.
 
The California cesspool of corruption is becoming a national embarrassment akin to Illinois.   Janet Phelan recounts some very frightening facts as do scores of others.   In her media appearances she has named names.    Even though local California law enforcement has had numerous similar complaints the political climate of California seems to be protective of the miscreants and like Illinois endeavoring to assault the First Amendment Rights of the whistleblower.   The Goodman case in Arizona demonstrates that each political party has a great deal of housekeeping necessary if the health care frauds are to be properly addressed.
 
The guardianship scandals have been correctly diagnosed to be less expensive (in a pecuniary sense) to the electorate than the hospice, nursing home, drug et al frauds, but they are much more expensive over-all as in each instance the assault on our Bill of Rights and in particular the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment erodes our democracy irrevocably.   Why should as an example anyone give a ***** that a petty political figure such as Jerome Larkin misuses his position as Administrator of the IARDC to attempt to silence a fat old jewish attorney, and loud mouthed African, and a working mother who happens to have an engineering degree and a blog.   Hell dozens of children are being shot and killed on the West and South sides of Chicago on a single weekend.   The casualty toll in Chicago exceeds that of Kabal.   Last we heard there was no invading army in Chicago.
 
Unfortunately Larkin’s actions are more dangerous to the republic that the crazy who dons his suicide suit and finds a population center to blow himself up!    Larkin frightens the timid legal profession so that they cower in their boots and endure extreme and repeated denials of liberty and exploitation of the elderly and the disabled.  The lawyers button their mouths and say nothing as they see senior citizens having their mouths minded for the gold in their teeth.   They say nothing as a senior citizen is railroaded into a guardianship to be stripped of her savings, incarcerated so as to isolate her from her prior life, and then placed into a program which will end in an involuntary assisted suicide.    They will even attend Continuing Education courses led by the very miscreants who are in real life demonstrating the proper execution of principle popularized by the 3rd Reich and National socialism. 
 
The GAO in a report to Congress details most of the foregoing; however, recognizing that NASGA, Probate Sharks, and other groups not wishing to emulate the miscreants called for an Intelligent, Honest, complete and Comprehensive investigation of the elder cleansing scandal.  The call was made so that when Larkin and his coherts are called before the Bar of Justice the prosecution will be able to prove their bad behavior beyond a reasonable doubt.  Yes, everyone including all the miscreants are fully aware of the perfidy that is being committed on a daily basis against the elderly and the disabled, but as Americans we seek to uphold our core values as stated in our State and Federal Constitution.    This distinction between us and them is important.
 
Affordable health care is important; however, it must be more than a slogan or a talking point.   This means that the corruption must be expunged as much as possible.   Every criminal scheme being conducted by those conducting the war on the elderly and disabled must be exposed and punished.   Collecting the gold from the teeth of the elderly may not be ethically challenged pursuant to the mores of Larkin, but to the rest of us it is amoral.   The Illinois Supreme Court in upholding Larkin assault on the First Amendment is of record as not agreeing with us.   It held by not reversing either Mr. Amu’s or my IARDC decision by Larkin that the reporting of crimes pursuant to 18 USCA 4 by lawyers violates the ethics of the Legal Profession.   See 735 ILCS 110/5, Article 1 section 4 of the Illinois Constitution, and the First Amendment.
 
The number of dollars wasted because of Larkin is paled by the funds diverted by Hospice, nursing home, drug and other gross over-charges and if there is ever to be affordable health care in the United States the Attorney General’s office must root out the criminals in the system and those – like Larkin – who aid and abet their criminal activities (18 USCA 371).  Such must be done intelligently.
 
A few years ago, a pharmacy operation was formed by two miscreants who we can identify as S and D.   Their operation was not to dissimilar to Omincare, except they opened retail stores throughout the area.   The enterprise was never intended to be legitimate.  
 
S & D realized that if the organization had one owner and the payouts topped a critical number there would be investigations.   They also realized that once the FBI or the IRS started to look into their business they would have to face the piper.   They also realized that even using an Enron type set up they would not be safe, unless, they brought in complete strangers into the operation.
 
Thus, the business was set up as a series of franchises.   A young pharmacist was recruited and offered the deal of a lifetime.   (This youngster was a person who was not of the same gene pool and most importantly of a different religion who would live in a WASP community).   M was such a person – he was bright, articulate, self assured, and ambitious.   The deal he was offered was a 51% ownership of a drug store franchise in a Northern suburb.   The business would cater to a fixed group of nursing homes and a minority community.  M was encouraged to purchase an expensive home in a Far Western community, and was provided with a luxury company car for his long drive to work.
 
M was spoon fed into reaching for his dreams and seeing every pecuniary hope realized.   As he learned the ropes he was given more and more responsibility including the right to hire and fire.  He was the pharmacist in charge.  After a suitable period of time, M’s partners – whose names appeared nowhere – suggested he delegate some of the work load – he should sign pharmacy authorization is blank and leave them in the office so that his assistants would not have to call him every time an authorization was required – he could just authorize on the phone.  M readily assented.
 
About a year later a special agent of the IRS and some State of Illinois investigators visited M, had him identify his signature on some authorization forms.   M realized that his partners had used his blank signatures to double and triple payments to the pharmacy franchise.   The common accountant supplied (but paid for by the franchise) of course knew nothing about overpayments, discrepancies in ordering etc.   In fact M had signed all the supporting documents including tax returns.   M was indicted!     Of course the Fed knew that S and D were behind the fraud, but, S & D made political contributions to the right members of the political elite and belonged the correct organizations.   S & D claimed shock that M was so much of a crook!    
 
It is suggested that the individuals who are behind the guardianship, nursing home, hospice frauds have followed the model of S & D.   In fact the deposition of Mr. Rothner that I forwarded to the Fed affirms that fact.   What is so interesting was that almost immediately after I forwarded the deposition for publication on the blog and sent copies to law enforcement the Supreme Court of Illinois suspended my license for four years.  It all is a coincidence!   
 
It is my thesis that the actors in the health care fraud are all related and all the schemes are connected.  
 
[As for M, he was guilty of the crime charged as he knew or should have known that he had a responsibility which he had neglected.   Yes, he was young, impressionable, and exploited; however, he was an adult and had to take the responsibility for his own acts.   When the State of Illinois acted to separate M from his license, every one of the Special agents who were instrumental in the prosecution of M, S, and D appeared a the hearing and each volunteered to testify for M.   Everyone of them testified truthfully and appropriate on M's behalf and I was gratified to have received on M's behalf a favorable determination.]  
Ken Ditkowsky
 
From: “jdit@aol.com” <jdit@aol.com>
To: kenditkowsky@yahoo.com; joanne@denisonlaw.com
Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2014 8:30 AM
Subject: Investigation on Health Management Association
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/25/darrell-issa-subpoenas_n_5620729.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000013

<<

Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) slammed  Rep. Issa (R-Cal) for leading “a fishing expedition” over the White House political office, which has an budget of about $1 million, when there are legitimate scandals the committee should be investigating that involve hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars being lost to fraud instead.
“Two and a half months ago, I sent to the chairman of this committee a letter asking him to start an investigation … on Health Management Associates, which has already ripped off the taxpayers of this country by $600 million in Medicare and Medicare fraud,” Speier said, referring to a case also being looked at by the Justice Department.
“Are we doing anything to look at something as important as that issue? Oh no. We want to investigate the president’s $1 million political office to see whether or not the funds are being used for a political or a governmental purpose,” she said. “This is a mockery, and I stand with my colleagues objecting to it.”
Issa said during a hearing of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which he chairs, that he’s not demanding that Simas testify because he thinks the White House Office of Political Affairs has inappropriately engaged in political campaign activities. Rather, Issa said, it’s the potential for that office to overstep the line in the future that he wants to examine.
“We are accusing neither the president nor this four-person office of any wrongdoing,” Issa said, adding, “I allege no wrongdoing.”>>
 
<<
But Democrats pointed to a key difference between Issa’s latest subpoena and Democrats subpoenaing top Bush officials in 2007: back then, there was actual evidence of inappropriate activity involving the U.S. Attorney scandal.>>
 
I took the quotes in a partially reversed order.  READ THE ARTICLE 
Judy

From Jorge R Roig and New York University–computer source code and the First Amendment

http://migration.nyulaw.me/sites/default/files/upload_documents/NYU-Annual-Survey-68-2-Roig.pdf

This law review article has a very good discussion of how law enforcement wants large corporations (IBM, GE, Dell, Sony, Toshiba, etc.) to build in “back door” subroutines into their software so that when law enforcement obtains a warrant to wire tap or search, they can easily download data, collect emails, and monitor the the bejeezus out of everyone.

It is my understanding that NSA has collected billions of transmissions of communications between ordinary US Citizens under rubber stamped, invasive and overreaching court orders from a court specially designed to obtain these–and the court complies! More interesting, is the fact while they have obtained “a lot of stuff”, apparently that “lot of stuff” is pretty much encrypted and they don’t have the keys and/or have not paid for them, or the encryption designers aren’t interested or will not turn over these keys.

On the otherhand, this blog provides a ton of information to law enforcement officials about a need to investigate the like of Gore, Tyler, Sykes, Wyman, LL, Schwartz, and others, just nothing is done and the ARDC routinely dismisses complaints on these cases.

Sigh.

JoAnne

new  quote:

Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312, 321 (1988) “Our cases indicate that as a content-based
restriction on political speech in a public forum, [the Act in question] must be subjected
to the most exacting scrutiny.”