A very well drafted letter from Judy Ditkowsky asks, “Why did the GAL’s threatening KDD when all he wants to do is investigate?”

Dear Readers;

Mrs. Ditkowsky has been kind enough to share her very well drafted letter with us on this blog.  In it, the letter asks the most important question underlying the case, why do the GAL’s in a Probate proceeding threaten a third party attorney for merely investigating an alleged wrongful guardianship?

Inquiring minds want to know.

As an attorney, or even an outsider, it doesn’t take much to know that when one is threatened, there is assuredly a fat, thick, scab to pick that probably contains a good amount of pus and infection.  I’m not a criminal atty, but at least I know that one.

Read on for some very interesting news.  I never heard the entire story about the “threats”, I know the ARDC did not want the entire story to come out, so this is very interesting.

JoAnne

Dear Senator ______,
RE:  Attorney SANCTIONED for SEEKING TO PROTECT A NINETY YEAR OLD LADY from severe repression of her civil and human rights!
My husband, Kenneth Ditkowsky, was threatened three years ago, that if he continued to represent the interests of a large group of relatives, personal friends and neighbors in their concern for the ongoing health and safety of a ninety year old lady, he would be hauled before the Court for sanctions and also the Illinois ARDC.  At that point, he had done nothing but investigate what their complaint entailed.  I personally was present in my husband’s office when the two telephone calls in which attorney Peter Schmiedel and Guardian ad litem Adam Stern made these threats, and heard them, because he put the calls on speakerphone specifically so that I would hear them.  Ken had done nothing improper, and therefore threat of attorney sanctions were totally improper.
 However, the threats were not made in vain.  Within a year, Ken had been sanctioned, and within six months thereafter, these same sanctions were vacated by the Appellate Court, as having been issued totally without jurisdiction.  Ken had been ordered (by the Circuit Court which incidentally had no jurisdiction) not to represent the ninety one year old lady and he NEVER had done so.  He had, however, as an attorney bound by the Himmel rule, continued to report violations of her civil rights.  He did so continuously, as there was no evidence that his reports had been taken seriously, and he widened the circle to whom the reports were made.  He also had a responsibility as a citizen to take action for the protection of a person whose rights were covered under Federal Statute and the fourteenth and fourth and fifth amendments to the US Constitution.  He had his own rights under the U.S. and the Illinois Constitution of Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Association, and the Right to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances (the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the first Article of the Illinois Constitution).
 Then step three was taken by attorney Schmiedel and Guardian ad litem Stern, now joined by Guardian ad litem Farenga.  Amazingly, fifteen counts that Ken had misbehaved were brought by the attorney for the administrator of the Illinois ARDC. I use the term misbehaved advisedly.  The fifteen counts met no criterion of specificity.  Under the U.S. Constitution, a defendant has the right to know exactly what he is being accused of, but the attorney for the administrator ADMITTED in her response to the motion to dismiss that she had no idea what lies, deceptions, or interferences with the administration of justice had actually taken place other than that emails had been sent .
 Suffice it to say that the hearing officers attorned completely to the actions of the ARDC and subjected my husband to a hearing.  The hearing officer announced that two days and two days only were allotted to this hearing, and then allowed the prosecution to meander on until after four p.m. on the second day.  Under the U.S. Constitution, how can a defense be limited to less than an hour of a business day, perhaps a hearing going to late in the evening of a weekend day?  Beyond that, apparently there was some “underlying case” which could not be referred to.  The “underlying case” could only have been the matter about which the supposed lies, deceptions and  “interference with justice” were made.
Despite these obstacles, under oath the prosecution witnesses made significant admissions that they did not follow mandated procedures prescribed by state statute to protect the civil rights of their ward.  Furthermore, while each retained the title of Guardian ad Litem after what was a VOID Plenary Guardianship according to the mandatory provisions of the State Statute, neither undertook to actually perform the duties assigned to a Guardian ad Litem, which are to protect the interest of the ward against malpractice by the Plenary Guardian, but instead invented non-existent duties which were to the detriment of their ward. The statement UNDER OATH by Cynthia Farenga was that in most cases the duties of the Guardian ad Litem are over in a few months, while in this case the Guardianship she has been awarded has extended for over three years.  Does this mean that Ken has “interfered” with justice by making it possible for Mary Sykes to remain alive at the age of ninety three, having been kidnapped just before her birthday of nine decades under color of statute, been kept  isolated from her family and friends, and been consigned to “elder day care”, having lost the comfort of her own home and the waste of all her assets?
There are two CD’s, taken a year apart, of Mary Sykes, after her incarceration under false pretenses in a home and daycare center. Neither shows the feeble-minded individual SWORN TO UNDER OATH by attorney Adam Stern. The first was taken a year after the kidnap occurred; the second, shows the ravages of two years spent under hostile conditions; yet Mrs. Sykes is still aware of her situations, her companion(s) and is lucid. In addition, independent observers of  Mrs. Sykes have occasionally seen her at family events and have reported that she has been cogent; there has been no investigation permitted of Guardian Ad Litem’s sworn statement at ARDC hearing, that in his initial interview with Mrs. Sykes, there was no question of her incompetency. Mrs. Sykes is prevented from using the telephone to contact her relatives, but on the very day of the hearing, one was able to speak to her while her captor was not present and Mrs. Sykes was lucid and cognizant of whom she was speaking to (also, she was certainly aware of how to pick up and answer a telephone)  despite her advanced age and the nearly complete isolation from all her family except for the plenary guardian, the guardian’s husband, and the granddaughter and the consignment to a day care center offering no intellectual stimulation, much less rehabilitative activity.
 The General Accounting Office in 2010 issued a report of the nationwide abuses of the rights to life, liberty and property of elderly people.  Has this report been placed into the circular file?  It is up to our elected Senators and Representatives to stand up for the citizens of the United States who have had the nerve to live past the Soylent Green age of thirty and for those who who have had the nerve to care about the rights of their fellow citizens in the face of the actions herein complained of!
 Mr. Ditkowsky has spent untold time, energy and material resources in the fight to free Mary Sykes.  He has exposed, UNDER THE OATHS OF THE PROSECUTION’S WITNESSES in the process of this ARDC hearing, numerous instances of egregious disregard of statutes, court decisions, the U.S. Constitution and the Illinois Constitution.  Under the most adverse of circumstances, his defense was able to show the TRUTH of the statements he has been making.  He was able to bring into evidence even more evidence of the truth of the statements he has been making.
 Nevertheless, the hearing panel did not consider any of this evidence but made their determination before leaving the building, as an order of misconduct was issued first thing the following Monday morning.
 Please be advised that Mr. Ditkowsky has never been accused of mistreating the elderly; he has been sanctioned and his reputation impaired for over two years for OPPOSING the mistreatment of one very feisty and resilient old lady. Isaiah, chapter 58 is quoted yearly at this time that the Lord does not care about fasting and sackcloth when innocents are being abused.  The armada of Government, however, in this case, is being employed to destroy the reputation of one who believes in the words of the Prophets, of the U.S. Constitution and of the Illinois Constitution, federal and state judiciary and laws and statutes.
 I am writing to you in the sincere hope that an investigation into the conduct of this entire matter over a period of over three years will be ordered.  This situation begins with the first attempt to chill any investigation into the circumstances of an almost ninety year old lady, on whose behalf almost twenty friends, neighbors, relative and fellow club members signed a petition and raised money for a retainer to pay my husband to look into the legal issues raised by what then seemed like a miscarriage of justice. It has continued through to the actions of the Attorney Registration and Discipline Committee which refused to dismiss an incompetent Motion for sanctions and in which its hearing officers issued an order of misconduct without taking the time to address any of the evidence allowed into the case as a result of the lines of questions introduced by the prosecution, which showed without a shadow of a doubt that neither the Guardians ad Litem nor the plenary Guardian were appointed in accordance with Illinois Statutes, decisions of appellate ( both federal and state) courts, or decisions of the United States Supreme court, in clear derogation of every free speech, right of association and right to petition for redress of grievances of the government.  Please investigate how this can happen in 2012 in The United States of America!
I apologize for the length and detail of this letter.
Sincerely,
Judith Ditkowsky
Dear Judy;
You have absolutely nothing to apologize for.  I loved your letter.  Tomorrow I am going to try to help John Wyman and test the meddle of the Probate Court in Rockford.  Soon as it is over, I will find the nearest Starbucks and give you all the results.
thanks again for your kind sharing and understanding.
JoAnne

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