From Atty Kenneth Ditkowsky–where is the First Amendment when you Need it?

From the Boone Tavern, Berea College
As children were admonished “TRUTH, JUSTICE, & THE AMERICAN WAY”  however, all bets are off when we there is a senior citizen in sight who can be abused or exploited by certain  favored persons appointed by the Courts as guardians/guardians ad litem etc.     Even an attorney, such as yours truly cannot escape the wrath if he speaks out.
On September 6/7 2012  I will be tried on disciplinary charges by the Illinois ARDC.    I am charged with exercising my First Amendment Rights, associating with persons who opposed the interests of Cynthia Farenga, Adam Stern, Peter Schmiedel and objecting to the fact that for three years the Circuit Court of Cook County has been acting without jurisdiction.     It appears that the aforementioned lawyers had neglected to vest the Court with jurisdiction ( In re: Sodini – citation omitted) by following certain mandatory criterion required by the State of Illinois prior to depriving a senior citizen of her liberty, her property, and civil rights.      It further appears that I committed the heinous crime of speaking in public in writing words and phrases that were critical of Ms. Farenga, Mr.  Stern, Peter Schmiedel and the presiding  Judge who appears to have been conducting proceedings in the courthouse without jurisdiction for three years.
The foregoing complaint will be addressed, but,  a new complaint has arisen.     The Illinois Supreme Court delegated to the Illinois ARDC the duty to root out ‘ethically challenged’ lawyers and it is supposed to stand as a beacon of honesty and legal propriety.    In reviewing my prosecution it occurred to me that I have a Himmel[1] responsibility  to report some grossly improper conduct on the part of the ARDC lawyers who are conducting my prosecution.   
Charge 1:    Improper conduct toward a witness.     Mary’s “Other Daughter” (“OD”) daughter is a key witness and the person who is expected to testify that the mandatory statutory notices were not provided to the near (close) relatives of Mary Sykes as is mandated by statute.    In particular,  the mandatory venue was ignored, the petition filed faulty as it did not disclose the people who were required to be disclosed, the mandatory 14 day written notice was ignored,  and Mary’s protections mandated by statute were ignored.     After Mary’s other daughter had been disclosed, the ARDC attorney, Ms. Lea Black,  sought to take the discovery deposition of that daughter.    A ridiculous dispute occurred that I characterize as grossly inappropriate.     The net was Mary’s other daughter and Ms. Black, after some unpleasant conversations did not meet so that the other daughter’s deposition could be taken.       As is pretty typical for these Elder Abuse/Financial Exploitation  cases  Ms. Black ignored the more conventional method of compelling an independent witness (not a party) to appear.   She filed a motion to bar me from calling Ms. Sykes as a witness.     The Disciplinary Panel denied her motion; however, but did not erase the gross defamation on the American Judicial System or the public demonstration of unfairness.
Charge 2:    Denial of an Accused a fact witness.        It is axiomatic  (Supreme Court Rule 191) that affidavits (sworn documents) must be signed by someone who has knowledge of the facts contained in the affidavit.     ARDC attorney , Ms. Lea Black,  was permitted by the ARDC panel to verify documents required by law to be verified, ergo,  she represented that she has personal knowledge of the facts (and can testify to them).     Ms. Black thus became a person who was named on my witness list.      The ARDC filed a motion to bar me from calling Ms. Black as a witness.    The ARDC panel denied the motion, but could not erase the stain and the defamation of the Illinois justice system.
Charge 3.     Attempt to bar public records key to the defense of these proceedings from being produced at trial.
If the First Amendment to the United States Constitution is revoked or suspended for these disciplinary proceedings the issue in this case is very simple.    Does the record of the Circuit Court in In re:  Mary Sykes 09 P 4585 contain a petition that discloses the ‘near’ or ‘close’  relatives of Mary Sykes – i.e. her two siblings and her two daughters.     (It does not).     Did the Clerk of the Circuit Court when the case was filed set a date for hearing thirty days after the filing?  (She did not).    Did the notice of hearing (in writing) get served on the other daughter and Mary’s two siblings 14 days prior to the date of the hearing?  (It was not).    Is there some evidence of this service, if any?   (there was  not).      (The panel has limited the number of Requests to Admit that I can serve on the ARDC so that method provided by the Supreme Court of Illinois to address all these key facts is not open).       Interestingly, the States Attorney of Cook County has filed a petition to quash my subpoena of the Clerk of the Circuit Court.     The panel has not ruled on this outrageous motion as of August 29, 2012.       The America Justice System was unique in that a defendant has always been afforded the opportunity fully defend his rights, privileges and immunities.     The States Attorney (of Cook County) is one of the Judicial Officers charged with protecting the rights of citizens, yet she appears in this Disciplinary case to thwart the efforts of the defense.  
It is respectfully submitted that when Circuit Court Records are examined in the Sykes case and the Petition filed by Mary Sykes for a protective order against the person appointed as plenary guardian surfaces, along with the perfidy that other daughter has had to endure it will be more than appropriate to refer to the Sykes case and the related cases as the “Son of Greylord!”         Citizens have filed complaints to the ARDC concerning Farenga and Stern.     It is my understanding that Judge Connors has been the subject of at least one Judicial Inquiry Board complaint in relation to this Sykes case.    HOWEVER,  the ARDC in setting its example of the proper for lawyers has not prosecuted either Farenga or Stern.      The conduct out lined supra that I charge has occurred and is of record in my disciplinary case is worthy of investigation and inquiry   — Unless, last night the concept of Due Process, Civil Rights, and Fairness were abrogated the charges that I make are very serious.

[1]   Mr. Himmel was a lawyer who was disciplined by the ARDC for not reporting a ‘bad action’ on the part of a brother lawyer.

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