From Ken Ditkowsky–a Response to the [agency]

Motion to Deem Request to admit admitted\
Now comes the Respondent Kenneth Ditkowsky and states as follows:
Prefatory statement
                Supreme Court Rule 216[1] is intended to separate the wheat from the shaft and require the petitioner to Admit facts that should not be contested;
Rule 216 provides that “[a] party may serve on any other party a written request for the admission by the latter of the truth of any *125 specified relevant fact set forth in the request.” 134 Ill.2d R. 216(a). The necessity and reasonableness of the medical services a plaintiff received to treat her injuries and the reasonable cost of those medical services are facts that are proper subjects for a Rule 216 request to admit. Szczeblewski v. Gossett, 342 Ill.App.3d 344, 348, 277 Ill.Dec. 1, 795 N.E.2d 368, 371 (2003). Rule 216 provides:
“Admission in the Absence of Denial. Each of the matters of fact and the genuineness of each document of which admission is requested is admitted unless, within 28 days after service thereof, the party to whom the request is directed serves upon the party requesting the admission * * * a sworn statement denying specifically the matters of which admission is requested or setting forth in detail the reasons why he cannot truthfully admit or deny those matters.” 134 Ill.2d R. 216(c).
24 The statute was not designed to shift the burden of proof on to a defendant but rather to save the time and expense of litigation by eliminating the necessity of proof regarding facts within the knowledge ***610 **151 of the party upon whom the request is made. Szczeblewski, 342 Ill.App.3d at 349, 277 Ill.Dec. 1, 795 N.E.2d at 371. To that end, Rule 216 provides that “a party has a good-faith obligation to make a reasonable effort to secure answers to requests to admit from persons or documents within the responding party’s reasonable control,” including from the party’s attorney and insurance company investigators or representatives. Szczeblewski, 342 Ill.App.3d at 349, 277 Ill.Dec. 1, 795 N.E.2d at 372. However, Rule 216 also provides that a responding party may, in lieu of answering all or part of the request, serve “written objections on the ground that some or all of the requested admissions are privileged or irrelevant or that the request is otherwise improper.” 134 Ill.2d R. 216(c); Brookbank v. Olson, 389 Ill.App.3d 683, 688, 329 Ill.Dec. 835, 907 N.E.2d 426, 430 (2009). If the proper framework of Rule 216 is not followed, an incontrovertible judicial admission results and the fact is withdrawn from contention. Brookbank, 389 Ill.App.3d at 687, 329 Ill.Dec. 835, 907 N.E.2d at 429–430.
Oelze v. Score Sports Venture, LLC, 401 Ill. App. 3d 110, 124-25, 927 N.E.2d 137, 150-51 appeal denied, 237 Ill. 2d 561, 938 N.E.2d 522 (2010)
Discussion
                The proceedings herein are not the usual litigation, but are proceedings in which a professional reputation is being defamed, and the Administrator has taken communications out of context and drawn conclusions that are not warranted.       The respondent is not a voluntary party or an attorney in any of the litigation from which these matters arise, however, as a citizen of the State of Illinois and the United States of America he has profound interest.    A senior citizen has been illegally deprived of her liberty, property, civil rights and human rights.     Persons who have protested what appear to be extra-judicial actions occurring in the Courts also have been deprived of the liberty, property, and civil rights including the rights guaranteed by the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article 1 of the Illinois Constitution of 1970.
It is respectfully suggested that the Administrator of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission is held to a higher standard as professionalism than the ‘run of the mill’ lawyer.   This fact is recognized by the fact that the Administrator must prove his claim by clear and convincing evidence.      Thus, responses such as:
Response:   The Administrator does not have sufficient information to admit or deny the purported fact contained in Request number 1 as the Administrator was not; present in court on August 31, 2009.  (Page 3 Administrator’s response to Respondent’s 3d Wave Request to Admit)
Response:   The Administrator objects to the term recruited.   Respondent is attempting to show that the Court and the Guardian ad litem engaged in “doctor shopping”    This is a disputed fact and in not the appropriate subject of a request to admit facts.   The Administrator admits the Dr. Amdur signed a CCP 211.  (page 3 and continued on page 2 of Administrator’s response to Respondent’s 3rd Wave Request to Admit)
“Response:  The administrator has insufficient evidence to admit or deny the purported facts contained in request number 6”     (page 2 Administrator’s response to Respondent’s 3rd Wave Request to Admit)
Is inappropriate and must be deemed admitted.       The Administrator’s responses to the Requests to Admit are replete with similar evidences of the Administrator no complying with the criterion established by the Supreme Court of Illinois to avoid forcing a litigant to prove facts that in all honesty and candor should be admitted.
                The Administrator after essentially disclosing that little, if any, investigation required by Rule 137 was done prior to filing the disciplinary complaint herein was been served with four sets of Request to Admit, each set having less than 30 Requests of parts thereof.     Each of the Request to Admit refers to an essential fact that should have been thoroughly investigated.     For instance, Matter of Sodini, 172 Ill. App. 3d 1055, 527 N.E.2d 530 (1988)   requires for the Probate Court to obtain jurisdiction that notices be served on the close relatives of Mary Sykes.       If as the respondent contends the Sodini notices were not served, this complaint must be dismissed.       Good faith requires that the Administrator either admit or deny the fact.     The criterion set out to protect people like Mary Sykes is very simple.    List in your petition the close relatives and serve them a notice 14 days before the competency hearing.      If the Sodini notices are not provided there is no jurisdiction to appoint plenary guardians, etc.[i] .
                Complaints that aver that a party has acted inappropriately become an Oxymoron when a second set of rules apply for the Administrator and the respondent.    Herein, as an example, the Attorney representing the Administrator listed in the Administrator’s schedule of witnesses a witness, JoAnne Denison.   The e-mail that was sent to Ms. Denison was requested to be admitted.      In paragraph 15 on page 6 of the 2nd Wave Responses the Administrator responded.
“Objection.  The Administrator moves to strike Request number 15/exhibit) as irrelevant to this proceeding as it relates to a separate confidential matter.    Without waiving the objection that Administrator does not have sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the genuineness of the e-mail but denies the facts therein.”
Indeed!    The Administrator in alleged ‘good faith’ and ‘candor’  represents that he does not have sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the genuiness of an e-mail sent from the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission offices by the very attorney who signed the responses to the Request to Admit.
                The respondent and others have alleged that their rights protected by the First Amendment, the Fifth Amendment and the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution have been violated.    The respondent and others have alleged that their rights protected by Article 1 of the Illinois Constitution of 1970 have been violated.    The respondent and others have alleged that 735 ILCS 110 and 42 USCA 1983 are being ignored in this prosecution and in the matters involving Gloria Sykes and Mary Sykes.     When in a response to a Request to Admit a document can be filed that in reference to a an e-mail sent by the attorney representing the Administrator that said states:
“****Without waiving the objection that Administrator does not have sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the genuineness of the e-mail but denies the facts therein”
There has been no candor in the responses, no good faith, and most seriously a double standard is being applied to the instant respondent’s rights by the Administrator.      The respondent therefore appeals to this hearing board to declare all the Requests to Admit admitted and enter judgment in favor of the respondent in these proceedings.
                The respondent has served four separate sets of interrogatories on the Administrator.     Rule 216,  like Rule 213 does not place any limitation on the number of sets of interrogatories and/or sets of Requests to Admit that can be served.     Each set is limited to 30 interrogatories including sub-parts.
Wherefore the respondent moves for the Requests to Admit that were not specifically denied to be deemed admitted.
Respectfully Submitted,
Kenneth Ditkowsky
Pro se,  Respondent
5940 W. Touhy Ave
Niles, Illinois 60714
847 600 3421
Advertisements

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s