Dear Readers;
One of the most disturbing aspects of the Probate case and the ARDC complaint against Ken is the complete lack of procedure and the pressing need to railroad everything and bypass normal and typical procedures. Neither Ken nor I have seen this is any case before, and he has practices for over 40 years and I have practiced for over 25.
I will update the lack of procedures in this case, but my “Table of Torts” surely should be made a law school/CLE classic. Just how much procedure can a court/tribunal ignore while supposedly doing its job?
Read below for lack of procedure in the ARDC on KD’s Requests to Admit, and the fact the ARDC never responded to any of his Affirmative Defenses, which must be denied or they are admitted and a Judgment on the Pleadings is called for and deserved.
But what the heck is really going on. Why are there being made serious mistakes in litigation by the ARDC that are being ignored. There are no cases that say an ARDC tribunal is exempt from the Rules of Court–which according to Bright v. Dicke are not “aspirational”, the Rules of Court are to have the “same force and effect as any Illinois Law.”
JoAnne
To: “jdit@aol.com” <jdit@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Suggested Re: draft of Motion for Judgment on the pleadings – unedited
Date: Jul 2, 2012 2:09 PM
The Motion for Judgment on the pleadings has the focus on the four corners of the pleadings. I did something highly unusual I had both Gloria and Scott verify the answer and affirmative defenses with their own affidavits. These affidavits recite facts that contradict the conclusions of the disciplinary complaint. I did these intentionally as I and everyone else knows that the complaint that was filed was filed solely to intimidate me and shut me up. the first attempt (the sanction motion) and the telephone call you heard on the speaker phone were not successful. Indeed they made me deed deeper, and thus I discovered the ‘dirty little secret’ that gave rise to all of this nonsense. (The plenary guardian obtained Mary’s double eagles! They are worth over $3000 a coin and she has ___ coins) The coins alone have a value of almost a million dollars. This today is unreported ‘INCOME’
The fact that the ARDC cannot and will not produce evidence of compliance with the protections that I refer to as Sodini protections is not a matter contained in the pleadings; however, Gloria’s affidavit verifying the answer and affirmative defense reports that she as a close relative was never served with the 14 notice. This is not something that can be waived – this is a protection for Mary Sykes. If Mary Sykes is a disabled person she is not in a position to waive the notice.
Thus, we are all bound by the ruling in Sodini that the Circuit Court had no jurisdiction. As it had no jurisdiction what is happening is a simple case of felony theft (and Federal Tax evasion) aided and abetted by a government agency – i.e. the ARDC and the law enforcement agencies that refuse to investigate and prosecute.
So far the panel has ignored the ‘cover up’ by the Administrator of the ARDC. Rule 191 requires verifications to be done upon personal knowledge and the affiant must be able to testify as to the matters he/she is verifying. The panel has ruled that the administrator can verify upon ‘information and belief’ and the fact that there is no information and belief is irrelevant. (That is a summary of recent rulings by the panel!)
Judy – at some point in time, there is going to be an honest investigation and by the clear light of hindsight people are going to have to explain why there were not interested in protecting the First Amendment. This is what happened in Greylord, in the Blago and Ryan cases, and in a bunch of other cases. The inquiry is in the context of the’clear light of hindsight!’ Thus, inaction today may mean ulcers tomorrow.
Thus, even though in any Court in which a level playing field is displayed my Motion is a ‘laydown’ the motion has a 50/50 chance. In any forum including those who are notorious for being star chamber proceedings the conduct of Lea Black would not be tolerated. I expect that like the illegal communication with my client JoAnn Denison the ARDC will do nothing. If it had been me or any other attorney you can bet your bottom dollar that they would have their panties in a bunch!
I have been in this situation before. It is too bad, but we live in Cook County and the State of Illinois and is the price we pay.
Ken Ditkowsky
Sent: Mon, Jul 2, 2012 11:58 am
Subject: draft of Motion for Judgment on the pleadings – unedited
Subject: draft of Motion for Judgment on the pleadings – unedited
The Alvarez case that was decided on the same day as the Court rule Obamacare constitutional is precedent that even if I made was totally made up the Sykes case, the Tyler case, the Wyman case et al, I had an absolute right to complain concerning such ‘august’ people as Stern, Farenga, et al. Unfortunately evey word that I have spoken is truthful and the travesty that is the Mary Sykes case is real.
It is my position in addition to my prior positions that the ARDC lacks jurisdiction as the State of Illinois is not paying them to violate 735 ILCS 110 et seq. of protect Stern, Farenga and the like from potential civil and/or criminal prosecutions. Indeed, the ARDC did not cover itself with Glory in the Greylord scandal and in this equally important situation it is at best aiding and abetting ****. An investigation by Federal and State law enforcement is necessary — Ms. Sykes recent run-in with Ms Black of the ARDC is bizzare. Talk to any practicing attorney and they will inform you that it is rare that a duly licensed attorney not extend every courtesy to a witness, especially the day after a holiday such as the 4th of July.
The Sykes case is just full of *****. Please inform me if the United States of America has recently had a election to replace President Obama and either the National Socialists or the Communists have won! What has happened in the Sykes and related cases is not only wrong, but is so alien to American justice that something must have happened – I realize that democracy is not a spectator sport – but*****.
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS BASED UPON RECENT RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT OF UNITED STATES IN CASE OF UNITED STATES v ALVAREZ
Now comes the respondent, Kenneth Ditkowsky and states in support of his Motion:
Prefatory Statement
The Supreme Court of the United States of America has been consistent in affirming the protections of the First Amendment and in obviating any device, gesture, or obfuscation that tends to restrict the First Amendment Rights of a citizen. A lawyer admitted to practice in Illinois is a protected person (see In re: RMJ 102 S. Ct 929) entitled to the privileges and immunities of the First Amendment. The First Amendment protections are illustrated by the decisions cited in the various Motions that the respondent has filed herein to dismiss these proceedings. These Motions are incorporated by reference and made part hereof as if set forth in detail.
Implicit in the First Amendment cases is the principle that lawyers (as citizens) are given the greatest leeway to carry out their assignments. The most recent case is United States v. Alvarez illustrates that lawyers and other citizens are not denied ‘core’ protections because of the content of their statements no matter where uttered and to whom stated. Alvarez reaffirms the limitations that government (including the ARDC) may impose to limit the right of ‘the people’ to express their views is extremely limited. Complaints of ‘Greylord’ or ‘Gulag’ type conduct by the Justice System are not amongst the categories of statements that can be censored or suppressed. This instant case, while distinguished by the fact the every statement made by the respondent is true, is essentially on ‘all fours’ with Alvarez.
Procedurally, the Administrator filed a disciplinary complaint herein accusing the respondent of being untruthful to ‘judicial officials, i.e. two Guardian ad litem, who act under color statute, knowing that 1) the sanction proceedings that they brought against the respondent were without jurisdiction; and 2) the court appointing them failed to comply with the protections of the Probate Statutes and thus is stripped of its jurisdiction. See: Matter of Sodini, 172 Ill. App. 3d 1055, 527 N.E.2d 530 (1988).
The Respondent Answered the complaint filed here by filing an Answer and Affirmative Defenses. The Administrator chose not to deny the affirmative matter, though he has had every opportunity to do so. The affirmative defenses are now admitted – 735 ILCS 5/2 613.
Subsequently on June 28, 2012 the United States Supreme Court filed its opinion in United States v. Alvarez. The case of United States v. Alvarez goes beyond the guiding principle of Ashcroft vs. American Civil Liberties Union 542 US 656, 660 that content based restrictions on speech are presumed invalid. Indeed, the Supreme Court has applied the most exacting scrutiny in assessing content- based restrictions based on protected speech Turner Broadcasting System Inc. v. FCC 512 US 622, 642 and even in cases of defamation or fraud, has set restrictive and protective criterion so as to give the broadest freedom to persons such as the instant respondent to express his views, protest to this government and associate with his clients, friends, neighbors etc. See New York Times v. Sullivan 376 US 254, 280.
Discussion
As a starting point the affirmative defenses filed by the respondent are not contested and therefore no proof is required to their efficacy. This panel denied the Administrator’s Motion to Strike the Answer and Affirmative Defenses and thus as no other documents were filed the pleading phase of these proceedings is over. This Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is based upon the fact that a fair reading of the pleadings leaves no issue to try. A fair reading of the Administrator’s complaint filed herein coupled with a fair reading of the Answer and un-denied Affirmative Defenses matter leaves no doubt that the Administrator’s Disciplinary Action was filed in derogation of the ‘core principles’ and policy of the State of Illinois recited in 735 ILCS 110/5. It is respectfully suggested that United States v. Alvarez, while dealing with a criminal statute, obviates the disciplinary complaint that is filed herein as the complaint by its words and phrases refers only to protected “content” speech. A lawyer complaining that certain persons appointed as guardian ad litem have not done their assigned tasks is not engaged in unethical conduct or criminal conduct. [1] Lawyers have been castigated for not reporting the very type of conduct that respondent has complained. The words and phrases of the First Amendment point out that complaints to law enforcement concerning the actions or non-actions of the Guardian ad Litem (or even the Administrator) are protected First Amendment Conduct even for a lawyer.
Most importantly, the respondent was not a party to the probate proceedings but was an ordinary citizen (who happened to be a lawyer) who objected to the fact that the two guardian ad litem were not interested in the alleged disabled person, but were actively engaged in preventing their ‘ward’ from enjoying her rights, privileges and immunities of American citizenship. In addition, the respondent objected to the fact that the Guardian ad items did not report matters adverse to the interests of the plenary guardian. These objections including a specific complaint that the GALs did not report to the court that their ward had been admitted to the emergency room at Edwards Hospital having lost 10% of her body weight, had most of her estate (estimated at approximately a million dollars) not inventoried and was isolated from her younger daughter and her younger sibling.[2] The right to protest this conduct on the part of the GALs is free speech. So is an expression of outrage that protections imbedded in the Probate Act to protect the ‘ward’ were ignored by not only the two guardian ad litem but the Judges assigned to the Probate Court.
This panel is invited to examine the docket and the record of the Circuit Court of Cook County in case In re: Estate of Sykes 09 P 4585. If such an examination is done it will be ascertained that, as per the affidavit of Gloria Sykes which is part and parcel of the Answer filed, the Sodini protections were ignored.[3] As the protections are jurisdictional it would appear that Mr. Stern, Ms. Farenga, and the Court lacked jurisdiction. It is respectfully submitted that a lawyer has an ethical duty to report illegal conduct to the authorities. Furthermore, the words and phrases of the First Amendment are clear in protecting such lawyers who are compliant from prosecution (of the complaining lawyer). The complaint filed herein infringes upon the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article 1 of the Illinois Constitution of 1970.
The litany of abuses by the complaining Guardians ad litem is extensive and unfortunately many of the acts either are criminal or border on the criminal. These acts being extra-judicial based upon Sodini make all that aid and abet these acts accessories! Some of the abuses are detailed in the sworn contradicted verifying affidavits of Scott Evans and Gloria Sykes attached to the answer and made part thereof. It appears that these miscreant acts the lawyer complained thereof generating this disciplinary hearing are believed to continue to this day and are aided and abetted by these very proceedings. For the record a report has been made by the respondent and others to the Department of Justice of the United States of America and the ARDC. (Reference is made in the pleadings to the GAO report to Congress of September 2011 – this report details some of the United States of America’s own findings).[4]
This panel as well all the institutions of government is bound by Article 1 of the Illinois Constitution and the First Amendment. The complaint filed herein is clear that all the respondent is accused of is ‘content based’ communications. The United States Supreme Court on June 28, 2012 determined in United States vs. Alvarez case 11-210 that restrictions on content based speech such as what occurred herein is barred as violating the First Amendment. As the affirmative matter contained in the Answer are undented and the allegations of the complaint disclose that the instant disciplinary action is a garden variety second attempt to silence the dissent of an attorney who was not subject to the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court in the case of In re: Mary Sykes 09 P 4585 in derogation of the First Amendment (and Article One of the Illinois Constitution) the instant proceeding should be dismissed.
Summary
The failure to deny an allegation in a pleading is an admission. The allegations made in the respondent’s affirmative defense are not denied by the Administrator and no reply has been filed. Ergo, the respondent as part of his answer to the disciplinary complaint filed herein made substantial allegations as his affirmative defense to defeat this disciplinary complaint on the authority of the Alvarez case decided last week by the United States Supreme Court. The Affirmative defense relying upon the United States Supreme Court’s rulings affirming the liberal and broad scope of the First Amendment averred that his conduct in protesting the miscreant conduct of the Mary Sykes plenary guardian and the two guardian ad litem appointed by the Circuit Court that is disclosed in the affidavits of Gloria Sykes and Scott Evans is protected by the First Amendment. See In re: RMJ 102 S. Ct 929 735 ILCS 5/2 613.
The facts of the complaint, answer and affirmative defense demonstrate an undenied violation of 735 ILCS 110 et seq. and in particular 735 ILCS 110/5 in bringing this action. It very clear that t735 ILCS 110, and the First Amendment decree that it is illegal for even the ARDC to attempt to deny the respondent and /or his clients their First Amendment Rights (these rights are also codified in Article 1 of the Illinois Constitution of 1970). The administrator can cite no authority that allows a guardian ad litem to aid and abet a plenary guardian (or a Court) in denying a senior citizen of her liberty, her property, her civil rights and her human rights. (See affidavits that are part of the answer of the respondent verified by Gloria Sykes and Scott Evans). In re: RMJ 102 S. Ct 929 and in re: Himmel are clear that respondent has every right to make inquiry as to all facets of the guardianship proceeding involving Mary Sykes, and any attempt at denying him that right is a violation of 42 USCA 1983.
The Illinois Supreme Court has made it very clear in In re: Himmel that it adheres to the principle of lawyers being free to expose corruption in the Court system, however, the administrator herein in this disciplinary complaint has taken a position that it is disingenuous and infirm as it violates not only the core principles of American jurisprudence, but the standard of Equal Protection of the Law manifest in Article One of the Illinois Constitution and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
Wherefore the respondent moves that the instant proceeding be dismissed pursuant to the precedent of United States vs. Alvarez and the other First Amendment cases decided by the Supreme Court of Illinois intended to prevent government (including the ARDC) to interfere with Kenneth K. Ditkowsky’s (and his clients) free speech and assembly.
Respectfully Submitted,
Kenneth Ditkowsky
Kenneth Ditkowsky
Pro se
5940 W. Touhy Ave
Niles, Illinois 60714
847 600 3421
[1] As the Administrator’s complaint appears to support the Greylord/Gulag conduction of the Sykes plenary guardian and the two GAL’s appointed in that vanilla estate the respondent not only personally verified the answer and affirmative defenses but requested and obtained the supporting verification of two witnesses who have personal knowledge that the conclusions recited in the Administrator’s complaint are inappropriate. This panel has denied the Administrator’s motion to strike. The Administrator does not deny the facts recited or the Affirmative Defenses.
[2] In paragraph 5 of her affidavit that is attached to the Answer filed by the Respondent to verify the same Ms. Sykes states:
“it is my understanding that my sister (plenary guardian made an unauthorized visit to the safety Deposit Box at the Pullman Bank. This safety deposit box was in the name of my mother and me. The box was illegally and secretly drilled. In addition to my property my Mother’s property was removed. This property consisted of jewelry, cash, valuable papers, and Gold and Silver coins. *** It is my estimate that today *** the value *** exceeds a million dollars***”
[3] Paragraph 9 of Ms. Sykies affidavit verifying respondent’s answer verifies that the Sodini protections necessary to vest the Probate Court with jurisdiction were not afforded Mary Sykes. Thus, Mr. Stern and Ms. Farenga had no standing to call themselves GALs in the Sykes Estate. In fact the Court had no jurisdiction to enter orders. It therefore follows that the actions of the Administrator in bringing this instant complaint are ultra vires. The ARDC has not been delegated authority to protect unlawful actions of Judges, Court appointed guardians, lawyers or similar persons. As the Appellate Court of Illinois in Sodini has ruled that the protections granted to persons who are subject to guardianship applications are jurisdictional it follows that the ARDC is bound to follow the law and not directly or indirectly aid or abet the unlawful conduct of depriving senior citizens of their liberty, their property, and/or their civil and human rights. It is respectfully submitted that this disciplinary complaint seeking to deny respondent of his right of protest and his clients of his investigation (and services) is beyond the jurisdiction of the Administrator.
MaryGSykes.com 