Now on–JMD on guardianship troubles in Illinois TWO HOURS!

You can now turn your internet to to hear about recent troubles and issues in Illinois probate.

While our last Monday’s program was interrupted, we are hoping for continuous broadcast this week.

Check out the chat room–lots of sympathetic probate court and other court problem sufferers.  Make some new friends.

My comments last Monday can be found here:

Another retaliation letter from the ARDC to Kenneth Ditkowsky

Dear Readers;

What Ken and I and Mr. Amu have done is clearly whistleblowing, with a plethora of evidence, facts, affidavits and pleadings in our favor–overwhelmingly so.  We send them to the FBI, the states attorneys, and of course, the ARDC who conveniently ignore them.  Wait, that’s not entirely correct, what the ARDC does if you confront them with evidence of a serious felon perpretrated by a favored attorney or a judge, is they provide you or your client with a nonsensical answer–as in Sykes where Ms. Guzmann said that Adam Stern was Gloria’s guardian ad litem (a veiled threat to guardianize her, but that won’t happen, they made Gloria broke and penniless), and more recently Bev Cooper was told it looked like a “civil dispute” when her mother was isolated from 20 friends and family for 6 months before she died, 29 gold teeth were pulled, and she was dehydrated and starved to death and $1.5 million fell off that inventory.  In the case of Janie Thomas, were a loving, long term sister POA was removed by miscreants who “pretended” not to understand accountings done on Microsoft Money and took away her POA because a body attachment issued (Janie was in the nursing home at the time, so she could not attend church and none of the other court appointed attorneys did ANYTHING until I stepped in, but they blamed the POA, a loving sister regardless), now the family is isolated from her with an 8 to 3 Mon to Fri visiting order when before the family spent hours with her and a beloved neice and nephew are distraught they cannot take Janie to her favorite church, restaurant–or most likely ever see the light of day again.  I will file a complaint, but watch the reaction, it will be nonsensical.  The ARDC is currently pretending in the Owens/Thomas case that the POA does not exist.

Where cronyism is involved, favoritism, handing off business is concerned, the ARDC will just put any sort of words together and issue a letter in response, completely ignoring the problem and doing their job to properly investigate.  So if you get a response to your grievance against an attorney that makes no sense (Sykes, Gore, Owens-Thomas), you know you’re picking a scab and there’s something festering underneath.  If you do find yourself in this position, don’t give up hope, you have the email to the US Dept of Justice, you have the emails to State’s attorneys, etc. and keep on investigating yourself and turning over the information.  Seek and you will find, knock and the door will be opened.  Just keep on going.  If the ARDC is sputtering nonsense, you know you’re on to something valuable.

Mr. Zimmerman, I understand was appointed by the SCOI to investigate the attorneys at the IARDC.  I recently learned he was appointed there by Gov. B, who is now in club fed med, and far as I can see, Mr. Z has no experience on how to do this, nor is he in fact doing anything about corruption and cronyism in the Illinois legal profession which is being hotly complained about by many.

This is nothing but First Amendment violations by Mr. Larkin, and unlike the Federal District Court, the violations are direct in that he files false charges against each of us claiming what we say is untrue when in fact the evidence is and has been published for all to see.

The filing of “other charge” against Mr. Ditkowsky for sending a letter to Dr. Patel and asking him for any information he might have that would help an investigation of Mary – for when he would appear, appearance form enclosed, are clearly retaliation charges.  The charges of misleading Dr. Patel are retaliation when they are facially deceptive.

The ARDC still does not publish a link to the letter, as does this blog.  They want to hide an obfuscate — using funds they collect which are entrusted to the public.

All of this qualifies for a qui tam action because Ken and I continually contact the authorities about the continuing string of felonies.

Accordingly, Mr. Ditkowsky offers the below safe harbor letter to Mr. Larkin.  Simply come clean and do what is right, and we will forego filing yet another law suit to clean up our precious courts so that we can take our clients there and expect the playing field to be level and the decisions well reasoned, just and fair.

I publish all the evidence to the public.  The ARDC does not.  They need to go to efiling on their cases and I will ask the SCOI to implement that.  The public needs to see every pleading, every motion to strike, the now apparent move to prevent even traditional motions of 2-615 and 2-619 for failure to state a claim, dismissal on other grounds.  They also strike all affirmative defenses.  In addition, they refuse Summary Judgment Motions–all of which is a waste of the funds they are entrusted with.  They quash subpoenas left and right.  Poor Mr. Amu not only could not file any of these traditional motions, but with no witnesses against him, his tribunal still found in favor of the ARDC.  How does this happen?  What sense of justice is that other than rubber stamp?  You have to have witnesses against any defendant or the case has to be dismissed.

Apparently not at the ARDC.

What Mr. Amu did was entirely proper.  The judges he complained of:  Chiola, Egan, etc. are notorious and 2 of the 3 reversed their decisions regardless based upon Mr. Amu hammering them for justice for his poor immigrant clients.

Of course, this would never happen at a large law firm that has political connections and jobs galore.  Don’t step on those toes.

But what it means is the sameole, sameole for the little guy out there.  The person of color, the immigrant, the person with an accent–their chances of seeing justice are greatly diminished and that’s not right or fair.  Lady Justice is blind, remember?


From: kenneth ditkowsky <>
To: JoAnne M. Denison <>; Probate Sharks <>; Harry Heckert <>; J. Ditkowsky <>; Nasga Us <>; Tim NASGA <>; Eric Holder <>; Matt Senator Kirk <>; Janet Phelan <>; Chicago FBI <>; Chicago Tribune <>; FBI- ( ( <>; SUNTIMES <>; BILL DITKOWSKY <>; Ginny Johnson <>; Cook County States Attorney <>; Illinois ARDC <>; ComplaintAdmin ADA (CRT) <>; Y. ACLU <>; Foxnews_7D7B711AF105DCA690AB56169C0FF242 ( <>; GLORIA Jean SYKES <>; Bev Cooper <>; Edward Carter <>; Diane Nash <>; ISBA Main Discussion Group <>; Chicagotonight ( <>; Fiduciary Watch <>; Human Rights Watch <>; tips <>; Barbara Stone <>; Mr. Lanre Amu — Honest Atty Unfairly Persecuted By ARDC <>; The Wall Street Journal <>; Jim ( <>; Candice Schwager <>
Sent: Sat, Sep 13, 2014 4:00 pm
Subject: Re: $1000 of nonsense and corruption

JoAnne – thank you for forwarding the retaliation letter.   [he refers to

I expected that the nadir of the legal profession would reach into its bag of tricks to retaliate for my continued exercise of my First Amendment Rights and privileges.   Illinois’ corruption apparently has no limits whatsoever and all of the miscreants are in lockstep.    

This should demonstrate to the ‘world’ the level of corruption in the legal system of the State of Illinois.    A lawyer who steals hundreds of thousands of dollars from a client is either given a pass or a slap on the wrist, however, the lawyer who reports the crime is deemed to be liar and given a four year suspension – and fined!   The amount of the fine – costs of $1000.00 is also interesting.   N.B.  The petition for cert was filed on or about June 6, 2014 in the United States Supreme Court.   On September 11, 2014 Larkin got the Illinois Supreme Court to fine me a $1000.00.  The terrorists are reported to like to assault America on the anniversary of a prior assault – ergo – The Supreme Court of Illinois joins in the assault on the First Amendment not on September 10, 2014, but on the anniversary of a day that will live in infamy in America!

Very appropriate!
Pursuant to 18 USCA 371 and 18 USCA 4 I have forwarded this information to the United States Department of Justice.  May it is time for reform to come to Illinois even if it is not ready for it!   Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities act and my oath as an attorney I will continue to protest the discrimination and the elder cleansing that so many senior citizens and disabled people are suffering.   I also continue to demand law enforcement to instanter do an HONEST intelligent complete and comprehensive investigation.    Please join with me in this demand!!!

What do you get when you Google “Kenneth Ditkowsky”? Ans–articles of bravery/activism!

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Sep 10, 2014 4:38 AM
To: “J. Ditkowsky” , Harry Heckert , Probate Sharks , Nasga Us , Tim NASGA , “JoAnne M. Denison” , Janet Phelan , BILL DITKOWSKY , Barbara Stone , Eric Blair , Tim Lahrman , “Jim (” , Eric Holder , Matt Senator Kirk , Chicago FBI , Chicago Tribune , “FBI- ( (” , SUNTIMES , Ginny Johnson , “ComplaintAdmin ADA (CRT)” , “Y. ACLU” , Scott Evans , “Foxnews_7D7B711AF105DCA690AB56169C0FF242 (” , Illinois ARDC

It is always interesting to check your name from time to time  You never know what you will find.

Activist attorney’s license cancelled after exposing court’s ‘elder cleansing’ corruption

Submitted by knowmore on Sat, 03/29/2014 – 05:27

(INTELLIHUB) – In yet another legal maneuver to shut down dissent, the attorney disciplinary board in the State of Illinois has suspended Chicago-based activist attorney Kenneth Ditkowsky’s license to practice law for four years, following a hearing where Ditkowsky’s right to speak out against corruption in the courts featured center-stage.
Ditkowsky, who has been practicing law since the early 1960′s, came to public attention after he became outspoken against what he calls “elder cleansing,” which is taking place in guardianship programs in courts throughout the United States. Ditkowsky has been sending emails to public officials, including Attorney General Eric Holder and US Senator Matt Kirk on a regular basis, asking for an “honest and complete investigation” of reported abuses going on under the mantle of adult guardianships.
Ditkowsky has defined “elder cleansing” as a three-step process: First, a court must assert its dominion over an elder person’s life and assets by appointing a guardian. Ditkowsky has detailed instances, such as in the Mary Sykes guardianship, where legal process was not adhered to. Second, the elder is systematically isolated from concerned family and friends and his assets pilfered by the very guardian who is in place to conserve the estate. The final stage of elder cleansing, according to Ditkowsky, occurs when the elder, now isolated and placed into a facility, is drugged to death.

The suspension for four years of my law license is a badge of honor in that it is positive proof to me that when the time to stand up be counted came up, I stood up and did not whim out!   

Every one wonders when they read about some horrible situation ‘- “What would I do?”    would I hide or would I stand up.   My father and his brothers right after the attack on Pearl Harbor enlisted in the Army and Navy.   They (and several of my cousins) temporarily gave up their personal security to fight for the ideals of America.   Could or would I do less?   

The greatest generation had to address overt monsters; however, our generation has to deal with back stabbing cowards who make war on those who are vulnerable.   ISIS (or ISIL) has a counterpart in the corrupt judicial officials, public officials, appointed cronies and those who aid and abet them (for profit) .   The political use of the IRS, the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary commission et al are the weapons of our current monsters!    I noted that some of this crowd are now using the National Socialist symbols in their nefarious endeavors.     I wonder if Mr. Larkin has a *** tattooed on his arm?   Certainly displaying that America Flag at the Illinois ARDC would be inappropriate after Larkin’s assault on the First Amendment.

Ken Ditkowsky

Going on internet radio in a few minutes

Please tune in to and click on channel AVR1 at 11 pm Central Daylight Savings Time (Chicago Time) or 12 midnight Eastern DST.

I will be talking about my 5 or 6 worst cases in probate and what will help my chairty.

Let’s see if I can make a difference in probate at the 18th floor of the Daley center and across the nation.

Probate victims are popping up everywhere it seems.


From Ken Ditkowsky — The story of Mr. Jaycox and his nursing home and the probate court

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Sep 8, 2014 12:01 PM
To: “Dr. Sam Sugar” , Tim Lahrman
Subject: Re: Malpractice

There is no question that the doctors who prescribe for the nursing homes and the hospice facilities openly and notoriously commit medical malpractice on a daily basis.   I find it very hard to justify an office visit wherein the physician never leaves his vehicle to be in the physical presence of the patient and his vehicle never slows below 20 mph.   Even in Florida such activity is below the standard of medical care of the average doctor in the community.  (Though considering the number of nursing homes and hospice facilities operating in South Florida it might be a close survey).
In all seriousness these people as so adept at lying that the prosecution of a Medical Mal case will be very difficult.   Let me explain. 
We had an explosion of medical mal cases after the Korean War.   Health insurance became a common occurrence and doctors became the only individual professionals who collected more than fifty percent of their billings.   The press reported doctors earning three hundred thousand dollars a year, driving Rolls Royces etc.    Worse yet, many doctors had an attitude that suggested that medicine was not an ‘art’ but a science.  They assured patients that if the patient did what he/she was told the cure was in the bag.  It was not always in the bag!   Sometimes the cure did not work.
The public reacted and came to the conclusion that if the doctor did not complete cure what ailed you he was incompetent and obvious negligent.   He promised by taking two aspirin a day my left leg would grow so that it was the same length as my right leg!   
The medical mal situation became absolutely intolerable and had to be arrested.   It was and each state has some safeguards so that a honest doctor can make a living and not be a hostage to an insurance carrier.   
Thus, we have step one.   Will the commission second guess the treating physician?   If it is accepted practice to treat patient x with drug y when he/she exhibits z symptoms who are you or who am I to say that is wrong.   The fact that every patient of Dr (1)**** is prescribed the same medications may just be a coincidence.    The fact that Dr. (2) has a different opinion means very little.   Dr (3) and Dr. (4) who specialize in ‘elder medicine’ all share Dr. (1) position.
The case become moot when the patient suffers from an aspirated pneumonia and dies!   Cremation occurs almost simultaneously with the last breath!   You are of course aware that in South Florida *****.   You just do not want to keep dead bodies around.   
OK – how do I know this?   I had a case here in Chicago involving a client by the name of Jaycox.   He was placed in a nursing home and they needed a guardian to be appointed so that they could charge the United States of America for their services.   I was hired by Mr. J’s paramour (significant other) and Mr. J (by letter to the Judge) to represent Mr. J’s interests.  It appeared to me that J was in the nursing home because they were administering a drug to him that had the side effect of serious muscular pain.   The nursing home would not let me see J’s medical records and the Court stated that under Hippa the guardian would have to consent.  Until there was a guardian we had a catch 22.
When I requested that the hearings be transferred to the nursing home so that Mr. J could attend J suffered a series of injuries.   On the day went ahead with a hearing at Swedish Covenant Hospital Mr. J literally went from the recovery room to the hearing room.   His pain from hip surgery was unbearable!   
The doctor who signed the certificate of incompetency was called to testify and his testimony was to the effect that Mr. J was so incompetent that a ‘stone’ had more cognitive acumen that Mr. J.   (The judge did the examination) I was given the right to cross examine.   I asked the physician who signed the consent for the operation.   Of course it was Mr. J!   That ended the hearing and it was continued to another date certain.
Mr. J then was reported to have an ‘aspirated pneumonia‘  He had ingested while in the loving care of the nursing home so solid material from some unknown source.  He died shortly thereafter.   The Court of course just before he died appointed a guardian for him so that the nursing home could be paid.  Cremation occurred almost simultaneously with the notice of his death to me.   
No attorney was interested in looking into a lawsuit.   No doctor was willing to certify a malpractice occurred.  In fact no one wanted to get involved.   
Why, you ask?   Take a quick look at the proceedings that Mr. Larkin brought against JoAnne Denison and myself!   There is so much money sliding under the bridge in these elder cleansing cases that the grease flows everywhere.    My profession has not covered itself with glory and the evidence is piling up that even the professional regulators have ‘sold out’ their professional responsibilities to be part of the ‘cover up.’  
Ken Ditkowsky

Free Speech and Lane v. Franks – can an employer retaliate, or is testimony against him a First Amendment right?

From Lane v. Franks where an employer fired an employee for testifying against him when he was engaged in fraud, is the sworn testimony protected speech or ordinary speech?  SCOTUS held:

Lane’s sworn testimony outside the scope of his ordinary job duties is entitled to First Amendment protection. Pp. 6–13.
(a) Pickering v. Board of Ed. of Township High School Dist. 205, Will Cty., 391 U. S. 563, 568, requires balancing “the interests of the[employee], as a citizen, in commenting upon matters of public concern and the interest of the State, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees.”Under the first step of the Pickering analysis, if the speech is made pursuant to the employee’s ordinary job duties, then the employee isnot speaking as a citizen for First Amendment purposes, and the inquiry ends. Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U. S. 410, 421. But if the “employee spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern,” the inquiryturns to “whether the relevant government entity had an adequatejustification for treating the employee differently from any other member of the general public.” Id., at 418. Pp. 6–8.
(b) Lane’s testimony is speech as a citizen on a matter of public concern. Pp. 8–12.
(1) Sworn testimony in judicial proceedings is a quintessential example of citizen speech for the simple reason that anyone who testifies in court bears an obligation, to the court and society at large, to tell the truth. That obligation is distinct and independent from any separate obligations a testifying public employee might have to his employer. The Eleventh Circuit read Garcetti far too broadly in holding that Lane did not speak as a citizen when he testified simply because he learned of the subject matter of that testimony in the course of his employment. Garcetti said nothing about speech that relates to public employment or concerns information learned in the course of that employment. The critical question under Garcetti is whether the speech at issue is itself ordinarily within the scope of an employee’s duties, not whether it merely concerns those duties. Indeed, speech by public employees on subject matter related to their employment holds special value precisely because those employees gain knowledge of matters of public concern through their employment. Pp. 9–11.
(2) Whether speech is a matter of public concern turns on the “content, form, and context” of the speech. Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 147–148. Here, corruption in a public program and misuseof state funds obviously involve matters of significant public concern. See Garcetti, 547 U. S., at 425. And the form and context of the speech—sworn testimony in a judicial proceeding—fortify that conclusion. See United States v. Alvarez, 567 U. S. ___, ___. Pp. 11–12.
Turning to Pickering’s second step, the employer’s side of the scale is entirely empty. Respondents do not assert, and cannot demonstrate, any government interest that tips the balance in their favor—for instance, evidence that Lane’s testimony was false or errorenousor that Lane unnecessarily disclosed sensitive, confidential, orprivileged information while testifying. Pp. 12–13.

Interestingly enough, an even more important question is whether the employee could seek damages from the employer and the government agency because could the employer have held a reasonable belief that his action was protected.  That, it turns out was a  question for another day because it was not part of the brief submitted to SCOTUS.


Nonetheless, the decision by SCOTUS was unanimous that government employees when speaking out against corruption do have First Amendment protection.

Ken’s Writ of Cert. has been submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court.  Approximately 4,000+ Writs for Certiorari are submitted.  Only about 300 get a decision, with about 100 summary confirmations, another 100 short or slip opinions, and only around 70 get a full blown opinion.  Let’s hope and pray that Ken’s brief is considered and the decision of the ARDC dismissed on grounds similar to Lane v. Franks.

Read the entire opinion here:


The decision was unanimous and I think SCOTUS makes it clear that when speaking of corruption, very wide berth must be given to one’s First Amendment rights.

From Ken Ditkowsky–that Probate courts must interact with the ADA and ensure non-discrimination twoard the wards

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Sep 7, 2014 4:20 PM
To: Barbara Stone , “JoAnne M. Denison”
Subject: The War on the elderly and the disabiled – and in particular the ultra vires assault on Barbara Stone


Barbara Stone:

The Americans with Disabilities Act applies to all persons with disabilities in that it levels the playing field   for the disabled by requiring reasonable accommodation of person so that they will not be deprived of their ‘core’ privileges and immunities.   I refer you to the U.S. Department of Justice Publication entitled Commonly Asked Questions about the Americans With Disabilities Act and Law Enforcement .

As you have read in the GAO Report to Congress and numerous other publications persons appointed as guardians have been noted to have been miscreant in the manner in which they have carried out their duties.     The Americans with Disabilities Act requires that the guardian and the Court make a reasonable accommodation for the disabled person.     This is not a license to separate the disabled person from his/her prior life, bar family from having social intercourse with her, or exploit her.     In too many cases the guardian acts (with the Probate Court attornment) entirely contrary to the mandate of the act.     In such cases 18 USCA 4 requires that such conduct be reported to law enforcement.      It is my opinion that such conduct whether approved by a judge or not is a very serious matter and an assault on the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Cons titution.

I find the information that you have related to me to be extremely disturbing and I have forwarded the same to Attorney General Eric Holder.      If the guardians and/or the attorneys for the guardian do not know what disability your mother suffers from they in my opinion are committing a fraud on the Court.      In the Federal Court notice pleading is the criterion and the fact that a guardian has been appointed for your mother ipso facto (the fact speaks for itself) avers that Florida Probate Court found your mother suffered from some rather serious disability.     Why else would the Court have appointed a guardian. [1]

The guardian whether legally or illegally appointed by a Court is a fiduciary and therefore, the guardian owes your mother (and you as a ‘associated’ person) the highest degree of fidelity and honesty.     If a guardian is ‘churning   the file’ whether a Court awards the excessive attorney fees and other fees is yet another violation of Americans with Disabilities.    Dishonesty (even if inadvertent or well intentioned) is not a reasonable accommodation!

Enforcement of ADA is a Federal obligation.     There is similar legislation at the State level, but, Congress has not delegated to the State the exclusive authority to determine what is a reasonable accommodation and what is not.     The reason for this is the fact that there is a long history of dishonest guardians, receivers, and other appointed judicial officials.      The disabled have been deemed a special class of citizens in need to protection so that they can enjoy the rights, privileges and immunities of all citizens.    (see answer to question 1).

As I read your documents what you are asking for from the Federal Court is that the guardians and certain other people (including some Judges) by ordered to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act .      America is a Nation of Laws and even if we do not like the particular law we have to obey it.      The problem that has developed is that a cottage industry of elder cleansing has developed and across the United States certain judges and their appointed guardians have chosen to ignore the Americans with Disabilities Act and the core values of America.

This e- mail may be used by you in any way that you deem to be appropriate.

Ken Ditkowsky.

[1] The games playing that you and other family members of ‘elder cleansing’ victims have had to endure is outrageous and contrary to the ‘core values’ of American civilization.     The Court and all attorneys are charged with being aware of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the requirements of reasonable accommodation.     If your mother was appropriately awarded a guardian under Florida law (as I read it) the Court must make specific findings as to what, if any, disability your mother had before appointing a guardian.    That guardian is limited in his authority to in a reasonable manner (at minimal expense) addressing only the disability found by the Court.     The guardian is not elected God, nor can a State Court abdicate its responsibilities to a professional guardian.     


For the record – if the averments that you make are 5% accurate the miscreants under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Title 18 of the United States Code   have some very serious accountings to do.     Read 18 USCA 371.   

Ken Ditkowsky