From Ken Ditkowsky–His Response to a Motion to Quash his Subpoena for the Trial Court Records

Dear Readers;

Today I found out that while Atty Ditkowsky had served a Subpoena on the Clerk of Court for a variety of pleadings in the Sykes case (most of which are missing regardless), it turns out that the Attorney General–that’s right, the office that taxpayers pay to protect our consumer rights and civil liberties, constitutional and due process rights–has filed a Motion to Quash the Subpoena.

How incredible and unfair is that?  Just whom and what cabal is the IAG’s offices protecting?  And where was the IAG during the Greylord years when corruption was open, rampant and often complained about in the Cook County Court system?

Well, as KDD and I have suspected, Greylord seems to have had kittens.  And those kittens have morphed into mountain lions, now devouring the just and ethical attorneys and their clients out there.

Read on for more and more questions about the Sykes Probate case.



In the Matter of:                    )
) Commission No. 2012 PR 00014
Attorney-Respondent,            )
No. 642754        )


Now comes Kenneth Ditkowsky, Respondent herein, and in response to the Motion to Quash Subpoena filed on behalf of Dorothy Brown, Clerk of the Circuit Court, states as follows
1) That the respondent did not initiate this litigation, and in fact has complained that the Administrator did little or no investigation prior to filing this disciplinary complaint and therefore, when all the facts are before this panel the respondent will be vindicated.
2) That a subpoena fee was mailed to the Clerk of the Circuit Court.   A copy of the covering letter and the check are attached hereto and made part hereof and incorporated by reference.    A verified certificate of mailing is attached.
3)  That the respondent is not a party to the cases that the records were subpoenaed and has not filed any appearance therein.
4)  That the Administrator has made averments that in words and phrases accused the respondent of making untrue statements concerning persons who do have relations to the three cases.    In particular, the Administrator has accused the respondent of defaming a Circuit Court Judge (or judges), two guardian ad litem, etc.   The discovery allowed by this panel was limited.   The respondent was denied the opportunity to have interrogatories answered by the Administrator, the number of Requests to Admit was limited,  the Answers to the Request to Admit were allowed to be verified by an attorney for the ARDC who had no personal knowledge of the files or the transaction, but was allowed to respond based upon an investigation.   The 214 compliance however revealed no investigation being done.
5)   That the issues in this disciplinary proceeding require the records of the Circuit Court to be presented to the panel as the respondent’s defense is dependent upon them.    To be specific, if the drafter of the ARDC petition herein had examined the records of the Circuit Court the following documents would have been produced by the Administrator during discovery:
a) A verified Petition for the Appointment of a Guardian and to find Mary Sykes incompetent.   This verified petition would have disclosed the correct venue for Mary Sykes, the names of near (close) relatives of Mary Sykes  (i.e. her two daughters and her two adult siblings).   The file documents would have shown the mandatory ( use of the word ‘shall’ in the statute) setting of a date, time and place for hearing within 30 days of the filing.    (No such petition complying with the statute was produced = and therefore the records of the Circuit Court to be produced with either show the jurisdictional compliance with the Statute or not.   The respondent used a subpoena to require the Clerk of the Court to bring in the Court file so that the panel can see that no such Petition is of record).  (See In re: Sodini 527 NE2d 536, 172 Ill App2d 1055.)

b) Certificates of mailing or other evidence of service of a 14 day written notice on the the ‘near’ (close) relatives of Mary Sykes of the service of actual written notice being served upon them in a timely manner.     The Administrator’s production does not show any certificates of mailing or proof of the service of the jurisdictional notices on Gloria Sykes or the two siblings of Mary Sykes).     The requirement is jurisdictional and therefore, if 5 (a) and/or 5 (b) are not in the court record the Circuit Court of Cook County has been acting – and continues to act – without jurisdiction.    A Court acting without jurisdiction cannot engage or appoint judicial officials.    (See In re: Sodini 527 NE2d 536, 172 Ill App2d 1055)

c) evidence of a CCP 211 (doctor’s report or certificate of incompetency)  being filed 10 days prior to date that the Clerk set the case for hearing.   The use of the word ‘shall’ makes this provision mandatory.    Again, no such material was furnished in the Administrators 214 production.

d) Evidence of a timely verified petition for the imposition of an injunction upon Gloria Sykes’ property.    NO such petition was provided by the ARDC in its 214 production.

e) Evidence of a bond being ordered and or filed to protect Gloria Sykes’ (and Mary Sykes’) interest in the event that the injunction entered by the Circuit Court would be inappropriate.   The bond would reimburse Sykes for any injury that occurred.     The ARDC did not provide such information.   However, the Court record including the pleadings will demonstrate one way or another if the statutory (jurisdictional) provisions were complied.

f)  Evidence of the plenary guardian complying with the provisions of the Probate Act providing for the issuance of citations.    The Rule 214 production does not demonstrate a timely petition, service on Gloria Sykes, the jurisdictional requirements being met.   Respondent is charged with making false charges, but, an examination of the Circuit Court Record will demonstrate that the citation requirements were not met and an order was entered by Judge Stuart that ‘froze’ Ms. Sykes’ assets located in the State of Indiana.

g) The records in Lumberman vs. Sykes are requested to demonstrate the a final order was entered in that case and no 735 ILCS 5/2 -1401 Petition was ever filed.     The production by the ARDC did not provide any such materials or any documentations or material that would exempt the proceeds of the said Lumberman judgement from Constitutional (and jurisdictional) protection of Full Faith and Credit.  Testimony of Gloria Sykes and adverse testimony will reveal that Judge Connors issued an injunction against the use of these funds, froze these funds and made some unusual statements concerning these funds.

h) The records of the Petition for an Order of Protection.    These records = also missing from the ARDC production = are essential to show that Mary Sykes with the aid of Court employed personnel filed a Petition for a protective order against the applicant to be appointed plenary guardian.  The said petition was somehow consolidated with the petition for the appointment of the plenary guardian and never heard.

i) the transcripts of proceedings filed and which were part of the record of the Appellate Court in relation to various appeals filed herein provide insight into the nature and conduct of the Court proceedings presided upon by Judge Connors and others.   These transcripts are believed to (and do) contain statements by Mary Sykes as to desiring a lawyer, objecting to the proceedings and other incidentals that would trigger the application of 11a-10 of the probate Act.    These transcripts will further demonstrate the unusual nature of the Circuit Court proceedings and some very unusual statements by the presiding judge.    The ARDC has not produced copies of these transcripts as part of its 214 compliance.

j) Other documents that bear on the issue of whether or not the respondent had justification in exercising his First Amendment Rights.

6)  The charges made by the Administrator are respectfully submitted to be in derogation of the First Amendment to the United States constitution, Article One of the Illinois Constitution, 42 USCA 1983, and 735 ILCS 110/ et seq.    That said, to defend the charges the respondent has to prove a negative and can do so only with the official records of the Circuit Court of Cook County before the panel.   As Ms. Sykes has filed a number of appeals the records that are under discussion have been complied for transmittal to the Appellate Court of Illinois and therefore, should be readily available for use in these proceedings.   The respondent similarly filed a successful appeal and paid for and had transmitted to the Appellate Court  a portion of the record.   Thus, as the Appellate Court has returned these records to the Circuit Court (in the Sykes case) the Clerk should have little problem in transmitting the complied records to this panel.
7) The necessity of these records is illustrated by a recent Evidence Deposition of Justice Connors.   The Administrator’s attorney asked the Judge if the respondent had made an admission.    The transcript of the proceedings made it very clear that no admission had been made.    In particular, Judge Connors asked if respondent had mailed a copy of an appearance to Dr. Patel.   Ms. Farenga popped up and was recorded as saying ” Yes, your honor”   Ms. Farenga does not represent or speak for the respondent and Ms. Farenga’s statement may be an admission on her part, but not on the part of the respondent.
8) That in answers to the Request to Admit, basic inquiry was made as to the record.   For instance, to declare Mary Sykes an incompetent person the petitioner had to prove such fact by ‘clear and convincing evidence.’    This would require a hearing on the subject.  One of the issues that is going to have to be addressed is going to concern this hearing.   Only the Administrator appears to believe that a hearing occurred.   The court record that was subpoenaed and which is the subject of the motion to quash will resolve this situation and disprove the Administrators response to a Request to Admit.
9)  Stripped to its basics this disciplinary proceeding involves the issue of whether or not attorneys are to be deprived of their First Amendment Rights.   Respondent raised this issue in his initial Motion to Dismiss and this panel denied the Motion.   Therefore, this respondent has to prove that he had good cause for communicating to law enforcement, his clients and the ‘judicial officials’ that they were acting illegally and without jurisdiction.    It absolutely impossible to prove a negative and, if the records upon which the allegations that the Administrator’s complaint is based are denied the respondent and he cannot obtain them, he will denied due process.
10)  A Court must have jurisdiction to have the power to interfere in people’s lives in the United States of America.    It may be an embarrassment and may not be politically correct, but it is an obligation of citizenship for all citizens to speak out as to injustice and wrongful action.    The respondent must be given the right to defend himself from the charges of the Administrator and without the records subpoenaed the Respondent is denied due process.
Wherefore the respondent objects to the Motion to Quash and respectfully requests that it be denied.
Respectfully Submitted,

Kenneth K. Ditkowsky

Pro Se
5940 West Touhy Avenue, Suite 230
Niles, Illinois 60714

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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