On Halloween — something scary — and real — a guardianship!

Just in the nick of time for Halloween, someone has sent me a very, very, very scary you tube embedded in an excellent article from The Pundint — a woman under a guardianship who is crying and sobbing she wants to go home, but the NY Probate court judge and GAL won’t let her:

http://rebelpundit.com/how-new-yorks-elderly-lose-their-homes-to-guardianship/

Read the article.  I think it’s easier to be one of the undead- a vampire, werewolf or walking undead than it is to be a grandpa or grandma forced into a nursing home, chemically restrained, nothing to do, than it is to be one of those monsters.

How did our society get that way?  What of poor Alice Gore, Carol Wyman and others–forced into nursing homes against their will when loving family wanted to take them in.

Quotes from our very own Cook County Public Guardian’s Office:

Some old people just remain in the community far too long when they really should be put in [a locked down] nursing home.

and another favorite from yesterday

It’s really hard when they (the seniors) know what is going on, because then they don’t want to be in a nursing home.  No one wants to go there.  It’s much better when they are more out of it [read, mentally disabled] and they don’t know where they are or who they are talking to.

And this is when the people have advance directives (a POA) saying they never want to be in a nursing home!

Let me know if anyone hears of anything scarier than what our own OPG attys state in the hallways of the 18th floor.

The response from other attorneys on the 18th floor when I repeat such statements in court?  They tell the court that I shouldn’t be allowed to repeat anything than isn’t on a transcript!  Of course, my response to that is, if you are ashamed to have anyone repeat what you said, next time try not saying it in the first place.

I’m just wondering, who are these people anyway and when they notice that after their heart donation they were still walking and talking but apparently not thinking very much.

Yes, these are real live quotes from the OPG in Cook County Chicago.

Decison from Judge Tharp — Rudek/Hartman Decision against consumer

Please take a look at the Rudek Decision.

In this case, the patient suffered a stroke.  He was supposed to be transferred to rehab and Humana medicare insurance was supposed to pay for it.  But at the last minute, and on the way out the door, the patient (who had suffered a stroke) was handed a “Notice of Termination of Benefits” so when he arrived at the stroke rehab center, he had no insurance benefits.  The family appealed on an ASAP basis, but that took time.  Still, they won and the hospital blamed the insurance company and reported them to the state for wrongful action, and the insurance company blamed the hospital.

Judge Tharp said that the hospital and the insurance company had immunity and after years of paying for the insurance, it was strangely not consumer fraud!  Not only that, he did not particularly like that argument and wanted to focus on the Notice of Termination statutory requirements which are technical in nature–which means whether a senior lives or dies in the US will be based upon how and when some piece of paper is handed to a sickly stroke victim lying on a gurney on the way out the door to rehab.  Oh yeah, I prefer that way to decide this important case and others like it, don’t you?

See the decision

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6FbJzwtHocwM201Y1hVaFB0dlE/view?usp=sharing

The only question is whether we will be filing a Motion to Reconsider which is due in 10 days from the date of the decision or by Nov 6 2014

Give us your thoughts. Don’t be shy.

How high can the scum in the cess pool rise to the top? Apparently to the very top, and here’s the reason why.

While I am pondering the decision from the 7th circuit today which while scathing, was not a surprise at least to me.  I am getting entirely used to the fact that the courts now rule 80% in favor of big business and big business interests and that the little guy does not stand a chance at all.

So from the 7th circuit we have fresh from yesterday:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/29/us/lobbyists-bearing-gifts-pursue-attorneys-general.html?_r=0

and the 7th circuit decision can be found here:

https://drive.google.com/?tab=mo&authuser=0#folders/0B6FbJzwtHocwSlRTQjRvVFhZcVU

In 7 pages of decision, not one mention of the First Amendment, not one mention of violation of Mary Sykes’ civil rights, not one mention that the blog and other concerned citizens and other concerned blogs have seen the summary removal of not one, but TWO probate judges and the scarcity of other attorneys involved.

Since this blog tells it like it is and there are the cases of not just Sykes, but also Gore, Bedin, Carol Wyman, Drabik, and a string of others, one wonders about this odd language:

In addition to misrepresenting the identity of his client, Ditkowsky and a colleague, attorney JoAnne Denison, launched a crusade against everyone concerned with the guardianship—Carolyn Toerpe, the judge, Mary Sykes’s guardians ad litem, and others. Through websites, petitions, emails, and blogs, they accused these persons of theft, bribery, and other misconduct. They did not, however, identify any evidence of crime; they treated their dissatisfaction with Carolyn Toerpe’s appointment as sufficient justi-fication for making sweeping and unsupported accusations.

The language is beyond odd, it is entirely bizarre.  How did I become “Ken’s collegue”?  Why are no other blogs mentions that feature Sykes, ie, NASGA and Probate Sharks, and how does the 7th circuit explain the disappearance of Judge Stuart from the scene?

We know the letter clearly says Ken was at the Rule 11 investigatory stage, we know that Judge Stuart said at first she never chained Gloria, and then she prevaricated on the witness stand and then I published a Bankruptcy transcript of PS and AS gloating Gloria had indeed been chained.

The other curious part of the decision is that it is pretty much absent of any law, which is extremely odd for a court decision, especially one from the federal circuit.

More odd, they claim I am not admitted to the 7th circuit when I clearly am.  How do they think I have an attorney ID to load up documents there?  How did that pleading get on Pacer for the 7th circuit.

It’s almost as if some lawyer goon or thug held a weapon to the 7th circuit and said “here, publish this–I’ll tell you the law and the facts”.

I guess they would be more convincing about “frivolous appeal” if they could have based it on the following:

1) while Ken was investigating, you are not to investigate any probate shenanigans if the GAL’s tell you not to (which AS and PS clearly said to Ken). All investigations of lack of jurisdiction and the railroading of a senior citizen must go through attorneys selected from the GAL list and they will decide, and not outsider attorneys, if and when Mary needed an attorney, and oh, by the way, she clearly did not, we can feel that in our bones.  Damn what Mary wrote on a video posted on the internet and damn what Mary said about her estate and it does not matter she appeared perfectly competent in one video–Judge Connors could decide elsewise if she wanted to.

2) Cite the law that seniors, as they get elderly have eroded human and civil rights, well because they’re elderly and fairly useless.  They don’t work, can barely walk and can’t feed themselves.  Surely the US Constitution does not cover the frail, the elderly and the weak.  The courts can decide their fate and that will be a locked down nursing home, chemical restraints and the stripping of their savings into accounts where probate judges and attorneys “know better” for them.  They board dogs and cats in cages for months on end, why not grandma and grandpa?  And while you’re at it, ban 90% or more of former friends and family.  They need to work and not waste time visiting an useless vegetable, right?

3) Cite the law that says if you don’t like a blog, if you don’t like emails, websites, faxes and mail, you can declare all of that a “vendetta” and then shred the First Amendment.  Ken wasn’t the only one worried, so were a variety of blogs and others–even numerous attorneys in the nation, worried, very worried about the “elder cleansing” scheme or trap that Mary and a host of seniors have fallen into, risking their very life, liberty, property and savings.  Cite the law that Mary’s beloved home which she wanted to live in “until she died” with Gloria had to be sold at 1/3 of its appraised value and rubber stamped by the Probate Court.  Please, do this for us.

4) Cite the law that permits Mary’s safe deposit box containing nearly $1 million or thereabouts in coins can be drilled without court order because, well Judge Connors’ team of attorneys in that court room told her repeatedly the coins didn’t exist.  Well, then why the secrecy in drilling the box, why the lack of investigation.  Why during my trial, it was a shock and sent the entire court into a tizzy when Gloria (who for sure was NOT permitted to testify) brought in subpoenaed documents (which took forever to subpoena because many miscreants did not want her to have this information), showing that a safe deposit box was drilled out, the contents emptied by the Plenary Guardian–without a court order!  None of the GAL’s or the Guardian’s attorney every told Judge Stuart about that.   So cite the law that the safe deposit boxes can be drilled, contents emptied and never inventoried.

5) Cite the law that a number of missteps in probate at some point doesn’t indicate theft, embezzlement, conversion and that does not dictate a full investigation.

6) The 7th circuit forgets Mary was not served with a summons and complaint, her safe deposit box was promptly drilled out by the Plenary Guardian without a court order and without an inventory, and the court appointed attorneys are careful not to allow anyone to ask any questions of the Guardian.  The Guardian has never been asked to inventory and swear to the inventory of that box.  The Guardian has never been asked why she drilled into a safe deposit box when signature cards on the box indicated it was in Mary’s and Gloria’s name.

A very curious decision by the 7th circuit.  Typically the Federal Court of appeals judges are not blind, deaf and dumb.  They look at all the facts alleged.  They look for the holes, they require District Court judges to think, act and scrutinize.

But not in the Mary Sykes case.  What these judges do is damn the facts!  Let’s go and just accuse the whistleblowers of having no facts.  And while we’re at it, we won’t cite any law.

It’s much easier to convince me that an appeal is frivolous, Lady and Mister Justices if you cite the facts, explain them away in some manner, find some law, even if it is worthless, lame and wrong or wrongly applied.

In this decision, there was none of that.  It was basically, we don’t like what you are saying, we don’t like your blog, your websites, your First Amendment rights, your vendetta (really? the truth is now a vendetta, come on now, you might not like the truth, it might be inconvenient, it might be embarrassing to Illinois, a top ten contender for most corrupt state, but vendetta via blogs and websites to release one poor railroaded grandma from guardianship purgatory, don’t you really think that’s a bit much?  Oh well, last time this “group” whatever group it is got Atty Melissa Smart to say the blog is like crying “fire” in a crowded theatre, so I guess vendetta is better).

Still, the lack of law and facts, the lack of just plain effort and the conclusory tone of “no one’s corrupt here, move along”, bespeaks a much darker side to all of this

Oh well, I was told that the nursing home corruption went “all the way up” and “it’s a deeply entrenched system that no one will ever believe”.  I didn’t think the 7th circuit was part of it, but come on now, that decision, are you kidding?

JoAnne

From Ken Ditkowsky–the Coopers write yet another to the ARDC

As you will recall, 99 year old Alice Gore had 29 gold teeth onlays pulled and a feeding tube implanted in her so the nursing home did not have to deal with slowly feeding her.  Bev Cooper says her mom wanted to eat, she loved food and Alice did not want a feeding tube but wanted to eat real food.

All that was denied her by the Guardian and her attorney, ala permission of the 18th floor.

$1.5 million is also missing and not investigated by the 18th floor or the IARDC.

Ken responds as follows:

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Oct 28, 2014 10:21 AM
To: “information@iardc.org” , “information@elderaffairs.org” , “info@bettergov.org” , Harry Heckert , “JoAnne M. Denison” , Barack Obama , Illinois ARDC , Eric Holder , Chicago FBI , “FBI- ( (” , “ComplaintAdmin ADA (CRT)” , Edward Carter , Help Elders
Cc: Probate Sharks , Tim NASGA , “J. Ditkowsky” , Nasga Us , Matt Senator Kirk , Chicago Tribune , BILL DITKOWSKY , SUNTIMES , Ginny Johnson , Janet Phelan , Cook County States Attorney , Bev Cooper , FOX News Network LLC , “Y. ACLU” , Scott Evans , Diane Nash , Barbara Stone , Fiduciary Watch , Cook Sheriff , “tips@cbschicago.com” , The Wall Street Journal , Eric Blair , Alyece Russell , “Mr. Lanre Amu — Honest Atty Unfairly Persecuted By ARDC” , “Tinker\”Janet Phelan at Tinker Belle” , “Complaint ADA (CRT)” , Legal Abuse Syndrome , “ABAJournal.com” , “Atty Nejla Lane Lane Legal Services. Com”
Subject: Fw: letter sent to IARDC 10-27-14
you may view the letter here:  https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6FbJzwtHocwS1ZGVTNWMEVkcG8/view?usp=sharing

 To: Illinois Attorney Registration and Distortion Commission f/k/a Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission
date October 28, 2014
Subject:  Obstruction of Justice, Accessory to felony, violation of 18 USCA 4, violation of 18 USCA 371, Violation of Civil Rights, and other Felonies committed by an agency of the Supreme Court of Illinois paid with public funds.
Dear Mr. Larkin,
Is it not time for your resignation!  (see forwarded attachment)
It is bad enough that you by your conduct toward Ms. Gore and the Coopers reflects a level of amorality not observed by the public since the War Crimes trials held shortly after WW2,  but you defame (or allow your subordinates) the core values of America.   Let me make this very clear – SENIOR CITIZENS AND THE DISABLED ARE NOT FAIR GAME FOR THE CORRUPT JUDICIAL OFFICIALS AND ATTORNEYS WHO ARE CURRENTLY CONDUCTING A WAR UPON THE ELDERLY AND THE DISABLED.
The public has no confidence in the legal profession for very good reason!   How can they when the action of gold mining an elderly widow’s teeth is acceptable conduct (according to the IARDC and the Supreme Court of Illinois), but the reporting of this terrible conduct is unethical and warrants a four year suspension of a law license.   If real senior citizens and real disabled people were not victims of your acting in concert with the elder cleansers the absurdity might be comical.
The ‘cover-up!’ has to end.   I copied law enforcement and am demanding from them a complete intelligent comprehensive investigation by a grand jury of at the very least the Mary Sykes case and the Alice Gore case.   (By a separate cover I’ve forwarded a copy of the Press release that Investigative producer Gloria Sykes authored and forwarded to the media)
Yours very truly,
N.B.   It has been reported that Illinois has a $3008 per capita tax to pay for the corruption that Illinois citizens endure!   Why should Illinois citizens paid six figure salaries to public officials who aid and abet corruption and other felonies!!!
Ken Ditkowsky

On Gloria’s ADA complaint–find it here

I will periodically monitor and publish pleadings on Gloria’s ADA case.

You will be able to find updated pleadings in this public drive

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwSmVYMGJia0ZPLWc&usp=sharing

I have the docket sheet in there, and I also have the complaint, if you are looking to file a similar case.

The docket sheet clearly shows that answers in this case are overdue, that the summonses were served and so Gloria now has the right to file  a Motion for Default and set prove up of her damages.

She says she has not been contacted about an extension of time.

PRESS RELEASE from Gloria Sykes–Sykes v. Cook County Courts and Presiding Judge Timothy Evans and Probate Judge Aicha MacCarthy

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

COOK COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT AND OTHER ILLINOIS PUBLIC ENTITIES INCLUDING ILLINOIS ATTORNEY GENERAL LISA MADIGAN FAIL TO APPEAR AND RESPOND TO DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION LAWSUIT BROUGHT UNDER THE AMERICANS’ WITH DISABILITIES ACT

CHICAGO ILLINOIS – October 27, 2014

Illinois Attorney General, Lisa Madigan and other public entities failed to appear and answer in a discrimination lawsuit under the Americans With Disabilities Act.  Chicago residents Gloria Jean Sykes and her disabled mother Mary have filed a disability discrimination lawsuit against the Cook County Circuit Court; the Cook County Circuit Court Chief Judge Timothy Evans; the Cook County Circuit Court, Probate Division; Probate Judge Aicha MacCarthy; the Office of the Illinois Attorney General, Lisa Madigan; the State of Illinois, Governor Pat Quinn; and, Carolyn Toerpe of Naperville, Illinois.  Filed on September 25, 2014 in the U.S. District Court under Title II of the Americans’ With Disabilities Act, the defendants were due to appear and respond on or before October 20, 2014 – and to date herein, the defendant courts, judges and other Illinois public entities have failed to appear and respond.

Joined in the lawsuit by a disability rights advocate and colleague from Indiana, Sykes says she is “not surprised that the defendants have failed to appear and respond because what these defendant public entities have done to her disabled mother is simply indefensible.”  According to Sykes, her colleague and the lawsuit “each of the defendant public entities are/were uniquely capable of finding the applicable regulations technical
assistance, and case law and recognizing the substantial likelihood of violating the federally guaranteed and protected ADA rights of the Plaintiffs …” – after all, the defendants are courts, judges and other public entities who know, make and enforce the law which makes their failure to timey appear and respond to the lawsuit even more intriguing.

Under Title II of the Americans’ With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12132 provides that, “… no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity” and according to Sykes, her colleague and the lawsuit, the Cook County Circuit Court and other defendant public entities have discriminated against Mary Sykes and her daughter Gloria since 2009 when Mary, a lifelong resident of Norwood Park and the widow of a career City of Chicago police officer who dedicated his entire professional life to public safety, was placed under the supervision and control of an adult probate guardianship by the Probate Division of the Cook County Circuit Court.

Adult guardianship is a subject of significant public importance deserving of far more public discussion than it has received over the years.  According to Sykes and her colleague “adult guardianship is a complex legal and social issue which is being used more frequently as our “boomer” population ages and succumbs to the frailties of life’s incapacities.”  In 1987 the U.S. Congress issued a report on adult guardianship and referred to the practice as a “national disgrace”1 because failures in the system are widespread and pervasive in every state across the country.  Between 2004 and 2011 the Government Accountability Office issued five different reports,2 none of which reflects much confidence in how guardianship is administered daily in courts all across the country, and one legal scholar writing about probate guardianship refers to a legal process “where the law of liquidation has taken precedence over the law of preservation.”3

Sykes, et al. v. Cook County Circuit Court, et al. (Case No.: 1:14-cv-07459) has been assigned to the Honorable Judge John J. Tharp, Jr. who, in a previous case involving Sykes and her mother, wrote “… as unappealing as it sounds applied to a living person, she [Mary] is the res of an in rem proceeding”4 which, according to the recent lawsuit is one of the discriminatory practices and disparate impacts of a probate adult guardianship because to be a “res” is to render the person under guardianship – referred to legally as being a ‘ward’ — to a status of being less than a second-class citizen, less than even human and in fact, as a matter of law — to be viewed as a “res” is to be viewed as being “a thing” and according to Sykes, “it is simply shocking to my conscious to witness my mother being treated like she is some sort of thing and less than human.”

Sykes is certainly not alone in her experience and she finds no solace in knowing that collectively hundreds of thousands of U.S. citizens are under guardianship in most every state of the union.  Sykes, a 39- year veteran news magazine and documentary producer, reporter, and writer – mostly for NBC, and published author and national investigative reporter, she and her Indiana colleague and disability rights advocate, Tim Lahrman, are currently in production of a 60-minute film documentary on the subject of adult guardianship: the two attended the 43rd World Congress on Adult Guardianship held in Arlington VA this past May where the pair interviewed several law professors, former judges, professional guardians and international advocates from various foreign counties in attendance at the three day Congress. Sykes also attemded and videotaped John Marshall Law School’s Conference on Rights of Older Persons where she interviewed many international scholars and advocates.  Currently slated for release in the spring of 2015 Sykes says, “the documentary film is intended to be both educational, inspirational and likewise serve as the catalyst for a much needed public discussion about how and when a guardianship may well impact each and every one of us because, after all, it is simply inescapable that each and every one of us will grow old and perhaps be disabled someday.”

Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan maintains a public website dedicated to her concerns for and responsibilities to Illinois’ elder population.  Found online at    http://www.illinoisattorneygeneral.gov/seniors/   AG Madigan readily recognizes that  “… protecting older citizens continues to be one of the most important responsibilities of the Attorney General’s office”.  Sykes says, “there is little doubt that AG Madigan is well aware of my mother’s case, I have called the hotline countless times, I have written numerous letters, sent hundreds and hundreds of emails, spent hours upon hours on the telephone, the court files are voluminous, two Chicago attorneys who have spoken out on behalf of my mother have been publically disciplined and professionally humiliated over my mother’s case, one probate judge recently, suddenly and quietly retired without notice, another judge is now facing judicial discipline proceedings, one of the appointed guardian ad litems has closed their office and cannot be located, and yet with all the hue and cry, not a word from Lisa Madigan, not a single effort to investigate and protect my mother – and now, in the face of a federal disability discrimination lawsuit, the AG and other Illinois public entities do not appear and respond to even defend themselves.”

For more information please contact:        timlahrman@aol.com
BELIEVE (Be-Live) LLC
1-855-376-0040

Cited sources:

1.    U. S. Congress Select Committee on Aging – Subcommittee on Health             and Long-Term Care (Comm. Pub. No. 100-639) entitled “Abuses In             Guardianship Of The Elderly And Infirm: A National Disgrace” (found             online at: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED297241.pdf – last visited
10/27/2014)

2.    GAO publication #(s): 04-655; 06-1086t; 10-241; 10-1046; 11-678

3.    Henry’s Indiana Probate Law & Practice (Rel. 1 – 12/04 Pub. 62794)             Chapter 37 Guardianship § 37.01 “Theory of Guardianship”, p. 37-3 ¶ 2

4.    Memorandum Opinion and Order, dated August 6, 2012, (ND Ill) Case             No.: 1:11-cv-07934 – M.G.S. v. Toerpe, et al.

Other references and relevant recent media:

A:  Columbus Dispatch expose’

B:  The Tennessean expose’ by Walter Roche

C:         Rethinking Guardians (Again): Substituted Decision Making as of a Violation of the Integration Mandate of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1567132

D.    Supportive Decision Making In Practice, http://povertylaw.org/communication/webinars/guardianship-alternatives

Other references and relevant recent media:

A:  Columbus Dispatch expose’,

http://www.dispatch.com/content/topic/special-reports/2014/unguarded.html

B:  The Tennessean expose’ by Walter Roche,

http://archive.tennessean.com/section/PROJECTS56

and,

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Conservatorship+The+Tennessean

C:    The National Association To Stop Guardianship Abuse chronicles articles
Regarding ADA discrimination violations and other abuses against the elderly and disabled.       http://nasga-stopguardianabuse.blogspot.com/

D.    Who’s Overseeing The Overseers? Indiana Report on Adult Guardianship

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:D9cFR_5tGrMJ:indianacourts.us/times/2012/07/whos-overseeing-the-overseers/+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

and,

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/admin/files/ad-guard-2012-full-report.pdf

$1,000 blood money

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Oct 27, 2014 11:28 AM
To: Lawrence Hyman , “Complaint ADA (CRT)”
Cc: Eric Holder , “FBI- ( (” , Chicago FBI , Probate Sharks , “JoAnne M. Denison” , Harry Heckert , Tim NASGA , “J. Ditkowsky” , Nasga Us , Matt Senator Kirk , Chicago Tribune , SUNTIMES , Janet Phelan , “ComplaintAdmin ADA (CRT)” , Ginny Johnson , BILL DITKOWSKY , Bev Cooper , FOX News Network LLC , “adacoordinator@illinoiscourts.gov” , Alyece Russell , Glenda Martinez , Jay Goldman , Diane Nash , Scott Evans , Kathie Bakken , Kevin Pizzarello , Garr Sanders , Bill Kristol , “Kirk@kirk.senate.gov”
Subject: Blood money
Until I ran across Mr. Larkin and the Illinois Attorney Registration and Distortion Commission I believed that at least at some level the political elite and justice system worked.   Larkin has taught me in the Amu case that Jim Crow is not dead, but, has changed its name to “legal ethics” and a uppity man with a skin color that is a hue darker than Mr. Larkin’s warrants a three year suspension of his law license if he complains that a judge hearing one of his cases has tilted the playing field a bit.   In my case I learned that it was absolutely proper for corrupt judges and lawyers to railroad senior citizens into guardianships, isolate them from their loved ones, redistribute the seniors’ estates to themselves and some friends, and ultimately kill of the victim; however, to comply with 18 USCA 4 and report the felonies is a heinous ethical breach warranting a four year suspension of a law license.   Larkin further taught me in the Denison case that he does not believe that he is subject to the First Amendment or any law.   Then, I learned that even due process is irrelevant when Larkin is involved.

Thus, I decided to pay the ‘blood money’ that Larkin wants as his “costs”   The $1000.00 check number 4582 was mailed this morning along with the following letter, to wit:

Kenneth Ditkowsky

5940 West Touhy Ave

Niles, Illinois

October 26, 2014

Mr. Jerome Larkin

Administrator

Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission

3161 West White Oaks Drive

Springfield, Illinois 62704

Dear Mr. Jerome Larkin :

I am in receipt of your letter of September 26, 2014 notifying me of what appears to be an out of term time ex-parte judgment of $1000.00 entered against me in direct violation of the retaliation provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Without waiving any rights including the Right to seek remediation and prosecution for your continued aiding and abetting elder cleansing, enclosed please find a check for the $1,000 judgment wrongfully in inappropriately entered.    Please forward a receipt and satisfaction of judgment.

Sincerely,

Kenneth Ditkowsky

 

cc:  Honorable Eric Holder, Attorney General of the United States of America, Americans with Disabilities Complaint Department.

Let me make the record very clear.    I am personally by this e-mail filing an ADA complaint for retaliation on the following basis:

1) Pursuant to 18 USCA 4 and other Federal and State statutes I complained pursuant to ADA and other statutes of the elder abuse and exploitation of Mary Sykes, 09 P 4585.   In particular I complained to Mr. Holder by letter (which letter was produced during disciplinary proceedings by Larkin, whose attorney asked me if I was repentant for writing the letter of complaint) concerning the attempted elder cleansing of Ms. Sykes.

2) That from time to time I have complained to law enforcement and demanded an Honest complete and comprehensive investigation of malpractice of Guardian ad litems Cynthia Farenga, Adam Stern, and others in that they have participated with Mr. Larkin in preventing certain disabled (senior citizens) from obtaining a reasonable accommodation for their alleged disabilities and have acting in concert with certain judges acted in concert with those judges (sans jurisdiction) to deprive disabled persons and in particular Mary Sykes of equal protection of the law and the reasonable accommodation to which the said senior citizens are absolutely entitled.   An example that I have given is the prospecting in the mouth of Alice Gore for her gold filings, the removal of the same and the non-inventory thereof.

3) That from time to time I have complained to law enforcement and demanded an Honest complete and comprehensive investigation of Mr. Larkin and various attorneys who receive public funds in their efforts to intimidate, and harass family members who have complained of the elder cleansings of various disabled and elderly persons.

The demand of Mr. Larkin and the Illinois Supreme Court of $1000.00 is a clear retaliation against me for invoking the ADA.   By a separate cover I will forward a copy of the check and my covering letter.   An Honest intelligent complete and comprehensive investigation of the violations of ADA complaints filed by myself and by others is requested.    We believe that a Grand Jury investigation of the Mary Sykes, Alice Gore and related cases is called for as the violations have been committed by Attorneys who know or should know the Law of the Land.

Thank you for your courtesy and co-operation

Ken Ditkowsky

http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/