Why is a fair trial so important?

Some important law from Ken Ditkowsky


A fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process.” People v. Hawkins, 181 Ill.2d 41, 50, 228 Ill.Dec. 924, 690 N.E.2d 999 (1998) (citing Bracy, 520 U.S. 899, 117 S.Ct. 1793). “Fairness at trial requires not only the absence of actual bias but also the absence of the probability of bias.” **971 *1001 Hawkins, 181 Ill.2d at 50, 228 Ill.Dec. 924, 690 N.E.2d 999 (citing In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136, 75 S.Ct. 623, 99 L.Ed. 942 (1955)). “To this end, no person is permitted to judge cases in which he or she has an interest in the outcome.” Hawkins, 181 Ill.2d at 50, 228 Ill.Dec. 924, 690 N.E.2d 999. “ ‘Every procedure which would offer a possible temptation to the average man as a judge to forget the burden of proof required to convict the defendant, or which might lead him not to hold the balance nice, clear and true between the state and the accused denies the latter due process of law.’ ” Hawkins, 181 Ill.2d at 51, 228 Ill.Dec. 924, 690 N.E.2d 999 (quoting Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, 532, 47 S.Ct. 437, 71 L.Ed. 749

People v. Gacho, 2012 IL App (1st) 091675, 967 N.E.2d 994, 1000-01
In Sykes, there was no discovery afforded Gloria, no pretrial motions, and Judge Connors gave about 15 minutes to the family to talk for a bit. I recall during that conversation CT told the court that she would allow Gloria to see Mary freely, if appointed.
This is in stark contrast to the clearly upset Mary at the nursing home who was asked “when can I see my beloved Gloria again” to which CT shouted “NEVER” and marched her off to a private room, pushing her in the back all the way along.
Some how a portion of that tape survives.  But no one cares.  The state said claims of abuse by grabing Mary until she shouted out, and then marching her down the hall away from Gloria whom she desperately wanted to see was somehow not abusive.
But the state cares more about prosecuting myself and Ken for speaking out against all of the elders who have been grossly abused in probate court.  What we say apparently isn’t pretty, the politicans don’t want to clean it up and they want no one to see the mess, but as KDD testified during his hearing, an independent government survey showed guardianship and probate court abuses were widespread across the nation.
LB asked Ken if he was “sorry” for quoting the GAO study INSTEAD of taking her own responsibility for cleaning up the mess.
The GAO was stating the facts.  Ken was repeating the facts.  A blog and a newspaper and journals merely collect and report on the facts. What does sorry have to do with this.  Does the American public want the ARDC to put our news thru a “sorry” filter.
As they used to say in Russia, where there were two papers–one meaning Truth, and the other News, there is no Izvestiya in Pravda and there is no Pravda in Izvestiya.
I think Russia tried that and it failed.

Corrupt case of the day

Dear Readers;

I am putting this case out there but I have to redact it for two reasons:  1) the ARDC does not like lawyers talking about corruption and their position is there is none….that is despite the fact I receive tons of emails to the contrary; and 2) apparently the goons and thugs have told me “don’t name names”.  I don’t need any more broken windshields or sugar in my gas.

so read on below.

It has been submitted to askdoj@doj.gov and to the emails for the state’s attorneys.  I don’t know if I’m not supposed to publish those.  In Ken’s trial, LB asked Ken if he was sorry for repeated in an email that was directly out of a GAO report indicating that probate court and guardian abuse were an epidemic after the author investigated.  “Feel sorry?”  Attorneys only present the facts, they are what they are, and then you put them in argument.  Some facts some people like, other facts aren’t liked, depending on what side of the fence you’re on.  We are not judges.  We don’t write opinions based upon how someone “feels.”  And most judges write opinions based upon the law not feelings.

LB must have taken psychology and thinks it applies to the duties of lawyers and judges.

The law is, you have to have jurisdiction, and to do that, you have to have a properly served and noticed summons and complaint, or at least a summons.  The Illinois Probate Act requires much more because the person you’re trying to get jurisdiction over is allegedly incompetent, so assuredly the family–adult parents, siblings and children must be timely notified to so the proper guardian is selected and the court is fully advised of all pertinent family members–who is an abuser, who is not; who can be trusted, who can not be; who the ward likes to be around and who they can’t stand to be around, etc.

All of this is in the law and the caselaw.

So read on for another case of corruption.  I am hoping, for the sake of the poor client, we can get a second trial or re do on the summary judgment motion of liability from all of this.


Dear Ken and Gloria
X had a case fixed ($6 million claim) in X of 2011, after a two week trial.   X was told it was fixed beforehand but during the trial it was a blood bath, the judge X ruled against Plaintiffs objections over and over again, sustained 95% of theirs, and then made a ridiculous ruling–even going to far as to blame the Plaintiff’s brother for the misdeeds of the defendants!

It was fixed by suddenly transferring it from Judge Y who suddenly said “he had no time for a trial” to some case assignment room with a “random judge generator” (which no one ever sees in operation–they went “to the back room”  and suddenly popped up with a judge.

Names involved:  Y for handing off the case and he knew or should have known to a place where they “fix” cases, and that “case transfer room” on the 14th floor was ridiculous too.

All of the players involved in this scheme are below, and I’m turning it over to Eric Holder and State’s attorneys for investigation of all of these players

The X center is filled with dirt and scum at the bar and on the bench.




Activity Date: 6/23/20xx Participant: Z
Judge: X
Microfilm: LD000bbbb
Activity Date: 6/23/20xx Participant: X
Date: 7/11/20xx
Court Time: 1000
Judge: X
Microfilm: LD000bbbb
Activity Date: 6/23/20xx Participant: X
Activity Date: 7/8/20xx Participant: V
Date: 7/11/20xx

Again, raising the ugly issue of visitation and how to pretend to do one’s duty as a plenary guardian

Dear Readers;

As you are all aware, it is common to take a targeted senior (meaning targeted by the OPG or a tied in probate attorney) and then isolate them, drain the estate and kill them off.  You now know the procedure over and over again.

A recent news story reports that three young women were held in a basement, restrained for 3 years and the miscreant got the death penalty for that.

Ken quipped if the women were elderly, held in a basement for 3 years against their will, property taken, bank accounts drained, they would call it “probate” and then have the miscreant lecture at approved “probate organization” meetings on how he carefully tended to 3 old women for years before they died and kept them from harming themselves with nosey relatives and the scary streets.  He would have received the guardian’s fee, and a probate court would have approved because several GAL’s and probate attorneys would have gotten the rest of the estate, together with “anti social” workers and case “mis” managers.  But I digress.

Illinois clearly needs to pass a “loss of consortium” law between parent and child and siblings and make the remedies enhanced where the victim is a senior that is being isolated.

CT has absolutely no court order that Gloria, Kathie or Yolanda needs a supervisor.  That has been done before and it didn’t work.  Gloria brings a minister, CT starts it up with abusive behavior and negative comments, that is reported and CT turns it around and blames Gloria and all the miscreant attorneys back it up that Gloria is the problem.  No reason to go there again.  Of course, the clergy denies it and the court ignores it.

One of our good friends and probate victims, RB pointed out, in probate, why is it “visitation” when what is really happening is social time between two consenting adults.  Mary is not a child to be granted “visitation” with momma and pops or nanna and pop pops.  She is a full grown adult, and competent to the extent she knows and loves and misses Gloria.  Video evidence was taken of that and the Naperville police incredulously destroyed it and I have yet to see Sgt. Krakow go report himself for misconduct or Commander Krammerer take any action or issue any apology or reconstruct the file, which has been already published here!  Isn’t that classic obstruction of justice and witness tampering.  Again, complaints are filed and no action taken.

Perhaps we need to start calling the visits with Mary “mother child bonding time”, with Yolanda “sister time”, with Kathie “aunt and niece bonding time”.

Gloria gets no bonding time with her mother and they love one another dearly. I saw that, as well as Scott Evans, the Garden Club of Norwood Park, dozens of citizens saw it on a daily basis and knew of it.  Why do the miscreants hide it when they get to court then?

Read on to what Ken Ditkowsky has to say today:

From: kenneth ditkowsky <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>
To: GLORIA Jean SYKES <gloami@msn.com>; Tim Lahrman NASGA <timlahrman@aol.com>; Eric Holder <askdoj@usdoj.gov>; matt_abbott <matt_abbott@kirk.senate.gov>; Cook County States Attorney <statesattorney@cookcountyil.gov>; Mary_Woolery <Mary_Woolery@isp.state.il.us>; 60m <60m@cbsnews.com>; tips <tips@elderabuseexposed.com>; tips <tips@tribune.com>; SUNTIMES <letters@suntimes.com>; ACLU <ACLU@ACLU.ORG>; illinois.ardc <illinois.ardc@gmail.com>; illinois.ardc <illinois.ardc@gmail.com>; NASGA <NASGA.org@gmail.com>; probate sharks <verenusl@gmail.com>; JoAnne Denison <JoAnne@DenisonLaw.com>; Kathie Bakken <k_bakken@att.net>
Cc: Harry Heckert <vahrh1135@aol.com>; j ditkowsky <jdit@aol.com>; denise <denise@momsv.org>
Sent: Wed, Sep 25, 2013 6:46 pm
Subject: Re: Email from Toerpe to aunt yo

Gloria/Tim/Kathy/Aunt Yo/General Holder/Senator Kirk
Gloria thank you for sending me the e-mail that you received from the plenary guardian for Mary Sykes (Toepe)  It is a waste of time to send a copy to the Mr. Stern or Ms. Farenga as they will complain to the Illinois ARDC that the complaint concerning the continued isolation (Abuse of an elderly person) is unethical and attorneys cannot complain concerning Elder Cleansing acts.   I therefore have reported myself to the IARDC and have sent them a copy of this e-mail which also copies Mr. Holder and various news organizations.  My responsibility as a human being is more important than covering up for persons engaged in elder cleansing!
What is tragic is that Mary Sykes is being held hostage in by her plenary guardian and being kept isolated from her family and in particularly her younger sister Yolanda.   This report of continued elder abuse apparently does not trouble either the two guardian ad litem; however, as this is the 3rd phase of elder cleansing and reasonably calculated to destroy Mary’s will to live and cause her death I am concerned.   I am also concerned that the appointment of Toerpe as guardian was done without compliance with 755 ILCS 5/11a – 10 – which is jurisdictional and the criterion of 11a – 3 was totally ignored.   (The circumstances of the appointment are obscene but that is another issue).
What is important is the fact that this e-mail reveals that 755 ILCs 5/11a – 17 and 18 are also being ignored by the plenary guardian.   The plenary guardian was appointed not to deprive Mary Sykes of her dignity, liberty and property, but only for the purposes stated in 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3(b).   If changes are to be considered the guardian must make application pursuant to 755 ILCS 5/11a – 17 and 18.    This fact seems to have been lost!  However, as it appears that the ‘system’ is designed to provide profit for the anointed “judicial officials”  (word used by Mr. Larkin to refer to our friends the miscreants, to wit: the two guardian ad litem, Ms. T, and her attorney – and those who aid and abet them) it is apparent that the statute is just a ‘technicality’ to be ignored.
This e-mail sent by Ms. T discloses her total disregard for her responsibilities as guardian.   The fact that Mr. Stern and Ms. Farenga have been active in the isolation of Mary Sykes and the fostering of these violations of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3, 17 & 18 is reprehensible and labels them assessories before and during the fact.    The isolation clearly is intended to destroy Mary Sykes’ will to live and thus prematurely end her life!
I’ve copied law enforcement and as a human being I am on bended knee begging for this travesty to end and that the protections of 755 ILCS 5/11a et seq be afforded to innocent Mary Sykes and the other senior citizens who are being abused and exploited by the cottage industry of ‘elder cleansing.’   I understand that my allowing Mary Sykes to visit freely with her sisters and her younger daughter the program of elder cleansing might be delayed and Mary might live a few days more; however – do we still live in the United STates of America?
(we all get old and we become vulnerable – thus we are all subject to ‘elder cleansing.’   If we do not join together and act to free Mary Sykes and all those seniors similarly situated let me assure you that you have in your future CT, AS, and/or CF.  I do not want this for your or me and therefore I selfishly pray that law enforcement will step in a restore the Rule of Law and end this terrorism!)
Ken Ditkowsky
From: GLORIA Jean SYKES <gloami@msn.com>
To: kenditkowsky@yahoo.com; Tim Lahrman NASGA <timlahrman@aol.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 3:20 PM
Subject: Email from Toerpe to aunt yo

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:
From: ybakken@pick911.com
Date: September 25, 2013 2:31:40 PM CDT
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
Subject: Fwd:  Visit

—–Original Message—–
From: Carolyn Toerpe [mailto:carolyn.toerpe@gmail.com?]
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 03:05 PM
To: ybakken@pick911.com
Cc: ‘Peter Schmiedel’, ‘Cynthia Farenga’, ‘Adam Stern’
Subject: Re: Visit

By the legal granting of Guardianship to me, by the State of Illinois.

And by all your past behaviors, in which you and yours, abut Gloria Sykes and her following of those who refuse to accept reality.
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 11:34 AM, <ybakken@pick911.com> wrote:

Under what authority is this a requirement?

—–Original Message—–
From: carolyn.toerpe@gmail.com [mailto:carolyn.toerpe@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 09:03 PM
To: ybakken@pick911.com
Cc: ‘Peter Schmiedel’, ‘Cynthia Farenga’, ‘Adam Stern’
Subject: Visit

As there was no communication as to a suggestion for a professional supervisor, there will be no visit tomorrow. Carolyn Sent from my iPad

Posted with permission of Ken Ditkowsky.  Other emails posted on “newsworthy basis”


From Ken Ditkowsky–he re-reads Atty Larkins brief and finds no case support

for regulating non commercial speech, the ability of Illinois attorneys to speak out against corruption, and to further the goals of truth and justice in our society.

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Sep 23, 2013 5:29 PM
To: JoAnne Denison
Cc: “lawrence@Lhyman.com” , Don Johnson
Subject: Fw: WestlawNext – Reichle v. Howards

The ball keep rolling along.   I do not know if I sent you this case before.   It is a clear statement as to the qualified immunity situation.   It also is another confirmation that Mr. Larkin’s actions are clearly ultra-vires and he is aware of the same.
I read Larkin’s brief again. (before the Review Commission) If ever there was an example of disrespect for the Rule of Law the brief meets that criterion.  Each of the ‘older’ Supreme Court cases that Larkin cites makes it very clear that Attorneys do have First Amendment Rights and there is no room for larkin or anyone else to impead content related speech.
The Sawyer case as an example held for the attorney.   It found that there was no impairment by local rule or otherwise to stop her from speaking out.   Not one of the Supreme Court cases cited by Larkin comes close to suggesting that an Administrator has to power or the jurisdiction to stop an attorney from speaking out on any content related or political subject.   There is some indication that an attorney’s advertising has to be reasonable, but, as judges are elected officials they are subject to critical comment as such is required by a free electorate.
This stuff is so basic that it ‘hurts’ that such ignorance of the basic principles of American society are not readily understood and protected.   Something is wrong when lawyers are paid by the State of Illinois and do not exhibit the knowledge that pre-teens are required to exhibit to get into ‘high school’     If Lawyers are ignorant as to the the basic protections afforded all citizens how are they competent to advise the public!   Indeed, why is the IARDC not bringing proceedings against these lawyers who represent themselves to be attorneys and have no idea as to what the First Amendment specifies!
I do not know how the public protects itself from this terrible situation, but it certainly has to do so – I can understand a lawyer having no familiarity with section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, but, a lawyer no knowing that other lawyers have the right to communicate with the Attorney General of the United STates and law enforcement is too much!!
I realize that Mr. Larkin, the IARDC, and the miscreants expect that you and I will shake in our boots because of the disciplinary proceedings that have been wrongfully brought against us; however, if they read the cases that recently were handed down by the United States Supreme Court ****.
What is interesting is the fact that Larkin is so reluctant to join in calling for an HONEST complete and comprehensive investigation of the Sykes case and its related miscreants.   I guess trying to explain the non-action on the citizen complaint letters is too much of a challenge.   Certainly our friends letters that have been furnished during discovery are hard to explain.   Judy has a thing about that letter from CF rationalizing that there could be no gold coins as if they existed Gloria would have been expected by her (CF) to have stolen them!!   Indeed, that suggests to me that such is exactly what happened when CT got into the safety deposit box.    How else could CT have afforded (with her husband unemployed and having been just days before pecuniarily embarrassed) the house remodeling and the lavish wedding for her daughter.
Ken Ditkowsky


Dear Ken;

It is indeed a sad day when lawyers cannot speak out against corruption and point out cases where jurisdiction is lacking–Sykes, Bedin, Wyman, Marcelle, etc.  And when jurisdiction is pointed out to the ARDC, they do not consider it a “serious matter” enough to launch an honest, complete and thorough investigation into these cases to protect the human and civil rights of the disabled persons involved.  It is indeed very disappointing.

Attys Larkin, SO and MS are silent on this at best, moving to strike valuable evidence from the file at worst.

How did these attorneys get to work for the ARDC and why aren’t they helping out probate victims rather than going after honest and ethical attorneys?  Have they no shame?  Is there nothing too low and evil they can aspire to?

I thought that the ARDC was a bastion of ethics, morals and lofty ideas for the attorneys in the State of Illinois.  It should be a break away from the lack of civilization we see, even in Chicago, with dozens shot and murdered on the South and West sides and the City just says “hire more cops” when the reality is, we do nothing to teach peace and love.  And the true peace and love comes from our own innate ability to see truth, peace, justice and equities done in the world.

Let’s keep on going and keep on reminding people that the most important thing for Chicagoans to do right now is to band together for the loftier goals of peace, love, justice, truth, equity and all the wonderful things we have been given to distribute in the world.

The world doesn’t have to be a scary place for seniors, their homes and property.

You and I can change that, Ken.


How much freedom is there afforded in our new tech savvy world? Facebook is now included!

From the Wall Street Journal today:




an article on how when a person said they “liked” another candidate they were fired by their boss!

The employee alleged that he had a first amendment right to “like” something on Facebook, even if his boss did not.  In this case, the employee was a deputy and his boss was the sheriff.  The employee said he like the opposing candidate and the boss fired him.

Since we all know someone who got fired for expressing political ideas at our work, this is an even more interesting case for you employers out there.


I find it fascinating.


More agencies to go to with claims of “elder abuse” and “elder exploitation”

This looks good on paper, but both Gloria and Kathie B. (both probate victims) are asking, so we went to these agencies and reported that Mary is being abused and the court has no jurisdiction, and nothing happened.  Over and over.  Years and years.


But go ahead and try:


Helplines, Hotlines, and Referral Sources

To report suspected elder abuse, neglect, or exploitation in Illinois:
  • 1-866-800-1409 (For suspected elder mistreatment in the home).
  • 1-888-206-1327 (For suspected elder mistreatment in the home, TTY access).
  • 217-524-6911 (For suspected elder mistreatment in the home, out of state line).
  • 1-800-252-8966 (To reach the Senior Helpline to report suspected elder mistreatment in long-term care facilities, in state line).
  • 1-888-206-1327 (To reach the Senior Helpline to report suspected elder mistreatment in long-term care facilities, TTY access).
  • 217-524-6911 (To reach the Senior Helpline to report suspected elder mistreatment in long-term care facilities, out of state line).

Additional Information

Individuals wishing to report suspected elder mistreatment may telephone the state help lines listed above, or visit the Elder Abuse Provider Agencies Directory Download Adobe PDF Reader External Web Site Policy to contact specific county offices directly regarding suspected elder mistreatment in the home.
For suspected elder mistreatment in long-term care facilities, visit the Long-Term Care Ombudsman Directory Download Adobe PDF Reader External Web Site Policy
State elder abuse statistics and/or other publications, Available Here External Web Site Policy.

State Government Agencies

Laws and Regulations

Other Resources

It is my opinion that nothing will happen in this arena with tied in cases unless and until we get a team of FBI agents on the 18th floor trained to spot court elder abuse and financial exploitation.

It starts with lack of summons and complaint, then it moves to isolation.  What relatives can’t see the ward and why?  Is there something to hide?  Are there claims of uninventoried assets that are actively being ignored.  When the attorneys ask questions, investigate and spot obvious highly unusual activities in the estate, who is being prosecuted and investigated by the ARDC?  Is it the attorneys in probate that are acting strangely, or is it the attorneys that are reporting the strange activities together with the documents from the court’s own records in support of the questions.

No one likes to go to court and find their constitutional rights no longer exist.  No one likes to be put in a nursing home, their property sold, and have no access to court.  No one likes to be in a nursing home, locked down, forced on psychotropic drugs so they become zombies, unable to go to court, or while in court trying to make wishes know, they are told to “shush up”.   Relatives who want to report abuse are told to “shush up.”  Hearing aides and reading glasses are taken away so it is clear the person is demented because they can’t hear and can’t read.  Staff doesn’t care because the nursing home is only required to provide 2.5 hrs of individual care.   Somehow in probate just about everyone needs 24/7 care so they all go to nursing homes and their own homes are sold–whether you like it or not.

But where is the hue and outcry for poor Mary and her elderly brother and sisters that have gone thru this and many are still going thru this.

Advance directives ignored.  Guardians the ward never wanted.

The list goes on.

Is no one worried that the very fabric of our democratic, free and constitution based society “of the people” and “for the people” is fast becoming “for the corrupt and tied in and your local political crony?”

I didn’t see that in any of in the constitution.

just wondering


Interesting article on paying docs to perform surgerys in “surgical centers”

From the Tribune:


It’s interesting to note the prosecution is over this businessman is directing certain traffic to his “surgical centers” by bribing doctors.  In other words, Nayak paid doctors $200 to $300 to use his surgical centers, then presumably the insurance companies paid much more to the surgical centers to “do medical business there”.

Apparently moving and directing medical business for profit is not really prohibited by the law directly.  The feds are prosecuting him under IRS tax laws for not filing the paperwork to report the bribes to the IRS, and then there is “honest services”– a very controversial part of Federal law that says businesses have to provide “honest services” for payment.  The feds allege that these payments were not disclosed to patients, even though there apparently is no real duty under the law to do so.  This is interesting because how many of us have gone to the doc’s offices, gotten a bill later and found all sorts of names on that bill we never even heard of besides the clinic’s and doctor’s name.  Lab services,PT, billing–you name it, bills are filled with names never heard of before.  And we always see amounts that are clearly suspect–such as massive amounts for routine blood tests that seemed to cost about half that years earlier.

The guy is linked to Blago and Rev. Jackson Jr. via campaign raising efforts.  No surprise.

Learning about Jurisdition–a 5th amendment right?

from google scholar:


In re DAR. C. and DAS. C., Minors (The People of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Daryl Crockett, Appellant).
Supreme Court of Illinois.
Filed October 27, 2011.
In re Detention of Hardin, 238 Ill. 2d 33, 39 (2010). As this court has recognized, “[i]f a court lacks either subject matter jurisdiction over the matter or personal jurisdiction over the parties, any order entered in the matter is void ab initio and, thus, may be attacked at any time.” In re M.W., 232 Ill. 2d 408, 414 (2009); see also Johnston v. City of Bloomington, 77 Ill. 2d 108, 112 (1979) (when subject matter jurisdiction or personal jurisdiction is lacking “the proceedings are a nullity and no rights are created by them and they may be declared void when collaterally attacked”). When a trial court fails to obtain personal jurisdiction over a litigant, it is deprived of the authority or power to impose judgment against the litigant. In re M.W., 232 Ill. 2d at 428.
Relevant to this appeal, personal jurisdiction may be imposed on a litigant by effective service of summons. In re M.W., 232 Ill. 2d at 426. Providing effective service is a means of protecting an individual’s right to due process by allowing for proper notification of interested individuals and an opportunity to be heard. Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950). Because the termination of parental rights implicates a fundamental liberty interest, the procedures employed must comply with due process. In re M.H., 196 Ill. 2d 356, 363 (2001) (citing Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753 (1982)). Ultimately, inadequate service of summons or process divests the trial court of personal jurisdiction. In re Antwan L., 368 Ill. App. 3d 1119, 1128 (2006).

And another one bites the dust–NJ Sup. Ct. rules you can’t be a judge and commedian too

For those of you out there that find that court on some days seems to be more buffoonery than a hall of justice, comes another problem.  A judge takes on a stage name and is a comedic hit.

Did he even joke about the law?  No. in a 7 to 0 decision, the N.J. Supreme Court apparently didn’t like his politics and the way he made derisive jokes against children!

They thought the public might be confused.

Interesting decision


Why does Mary continue to be isolated from friends and family?

Today we continue to ask the question, why is Mary Skyes still being isolated from her family and friends.

Her home has been sold, the court has been informed that the other home has more debt on it than it is worth to sell.  This is and has been Gloria’s home, she paid for it, she paid the mortgage and she was the only one living there and only her property is in the home.

No one in the family disputes that.

Mary, if asked, would not dispute that, but she is not allowed to come to court or to testify, despite the fact the Illinois Probate Act does not take away all her rights to make decisions.  It is only where she needs help making a decision that the court and/or her Guardian should intervene.

Mary wants to “go home” and live with Gloria.  She said that if she and Gloria had to, they could start over.  What a warm and wonderful woman!  How thoughtful of her.  That was in June of this year when friends and family were able to visit her and she how warm and wonderful she really is.  That was despite the fact she was in a nursing home and didn’t want to be there.  She said she was waiting for Gloria to come and take her home–whatever place Gloria was calling home.

Of course, that did not happen.

For some reason Mary has to be isolated from beloved family and friends.  Her home was sold and she never wanted that.  She had great insurance and Gloria helped her with all the bills.  The court stopped all that.

How unfair and how miserable for Mary.

No one has any justifiable reason for any of this.  No one.


Just in from the ARDC–a Motion to Strike the depositions of the Fab-4

For those of you that have read through the depositions of Gloria Sykes, Scott Evans, Yolanda Bakken (age 85 and sister of Mary) and Kathie Bakken, they pretty much directly contradict the Jan 08 2013 complaint filed by the ARDC against me.

So now what do you do when you are faced with an obvious, large inconvenient truth?


I have never seen anyone use Motions to Strike as much as the ARDC does.  They don’t seem to find it necessary or convenient to argue the truth, the case law, the facts.  They just want to strike it all.

See below:

ARDC Motion to Strike Depositions of Gloria Sykes, Scott Evans, Kathie Bakken and Yolanda Bakken 091313

So what are they afraid of?  The truth?

How is it that it has been many, many long months since this first began, and it ended up I had to prove the truth of what this blog is all about.  And you will note that the ARDC does NOT deny that this is the  truth.  They just want it stricken.

Paragraph 8 becomes utterly hilarious when you combine it with THE TRUTH” was filed with the intention to harass, cause unnecessary delay and needlessly increase the cost of litigation”.

Yes, apparently THE TRUTH is what harasses the ARDC, delays them (what, to cover up corruption?) and needlessly increases the cost of their litigation.  Such a shame.

I’ll say it again (it was Kathie who posted it first on Facebook), “if something can be destroyed by truth, then it deserves to be destroyed by the truth.”  Carl Sagan.

And if anyone can possibly explain all of this to me, you are cordially invited to do so.

SO has been very busy working hard to cover up all the excreta leeching out of court room 1804.  Now it’s been splattered all over the internet.

Definition of Corruption:  Deviation from a law, moral or ideal.


A Reminder: It’s not about me or Ken…. it’s about those too elderly, debilitated, to speak for themselves.

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Sep 12, 2013 5:30 PM
To: “illinois.ardc@gmail.com”
Subject: ‘elder cleansing’ – safe harbor opportunity

If If the IARDC is to give the impression that it has even a vague interest in protecting the public it ought to be leading the fight to obtain compliance with 755 ILCS 5/11a -10.    This statute is the core of the Illinois legislative protection for elders to avoid being railroaded into guardianship and stripped of their liberty and property rights.  As Ms. Denison, Ms. Sykes, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Wyman and dozens of others have reported to you, even though this statute is jurisdictional it has been almost totally ignored by our miscreant friends.  This is a fact, whether Mr. Stern, Ms. Farenga, Ms. Solo, or Mr. Schmiedel agrees or not. The Sykes transcript stands in stark rebuttal to the IARDC staff and the miscreants assertions.
That said, by a separate cover I sent you a copy of CCP 0201A.   That is the summons that is used in the guardianship matters.   Take a look at it!   Now read 755 ILCS 5/11a – 10.   The summons does not comply with the statute.   |
Some judges in the Federal Court require prior to filing a FRCP 11 motion that a ‘safe harbor’ letter be sent so that errors can be corrected.   I did this with Stern and Farenga and these letters were part of your complaint against me.  Oh well?   Every good deed is properly punished!  It is a foregone conclusion that with the current US Supreme Court decisions and any level playing field the Supreme court of Illinois is going to vindicate both JoAnne and myself.
This matter however is not about me or JoAnne – it is about avarice, corruption or arrogance by the miscreants that separates hundreds of senior citizens and disabled people wrongfully from their liberty and property.   I am writing you to solicit your help in restoring to the victims of ‘elder cleansing’ (both past, present, and future) their rights.
Ms. Denison and I rationalize that if we can obtain the ARDC’s suggestion to the Honorable D. Brown to comply with 11a – 10 in the printing of the summons as early as tomorrow we will make ‘elder cleansing’ a bit more difficult.  The delegation to the ARDC is to protect the public from the miscreants in the legal profession – not aid and abet miscreant issues.
It is not too late to re-mediate the wrongs that were done to Mary Sykes and Mr. Rotheimer.   The miscreants have not accomplished the final solution.  It would be fitting for the IARDC to on the day of Atonement to make a giant step to help Gloria Sykes, Denise Rotheimer, Bev Cooper, the two Marys, John Wyman, JoAnne Denison and the hundreds of tireless and selfless ‘good people’ working to protect the Rights of the elderly and the disabled.  The effort may be token, but, Mary Sykes and those persons similarly situated deserve to have their government come to their aid to protect them against the miscreants who would pull the victims teeth to obtain the tiny bit of gold in the fillings!
We need an HONEST complete and comprehensive investigation of the Sykes case and the related ‘elder cleansing cases.   Time is short for many of the victims –
Happy Jewish New year!  Free Mary Sykes, Mr. Rotheimer, and all those poor people who have one or more of the miscreants in their future!
Ken Ditkowsky


From Ken Ditkowsky today–let’s keep up the pressure TO DO THE RIGHT THING! STOP ALL GAG ORDERS IN PROBATE!

  Law  Offices

5940  W.  Touhy,  Suite   230  
Niles ,  IL   60714
(847)  600-3421  Telephone
(847)  600-3425  Fax
 September 12, 2013
Honorable Mark Kirk, United States Senator
219 South Dearborn
Chicago, Illinois
Re:  Elder Cleansing and the Assault on the First Amendment
Dear Senator Kirk,
As a reminder of the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center I received a contact from a young woman who was concerned because a ‘guardian’ appointed to act pursuant to 755 ILCS 5/11a -3 had gone ex-parte into Court to attempt to silence her.   The petition filed has been sent to your office by e-mail.   The ex-parte petition is reminiscent of something that could be used in the North Korean or Russian Courts, but not in America.    The Court appointed guardian sought to enjoin (by a protective order) the young woman from holding a ‘press conference!’   
The Mary Sykes case and related cases are similarly classic examples of repression, kidnapping, exploitation, isolation and abuse of the elderly.   Sykes is a classic.   The Alice Gore case is just obscene in that after looting the estate of 1.5 million dollars the miscreants removed Alice’s teeth to salvage the gold in her fillings.   Wyman can be characterized as a way to remove by elder cleansing a troublesome wife.  Rotheimer is an attempt at garnering a new record low in morality.  
I make no secret of the fact that I am aggrieved by Mr. J. Larkin attempting to silence Ms. Denison and me with meritless ethics complaints.   The corruption of Mr. Larkin, the ARDC, and the court is disgusting.    Everyone knows as an example that the jurisdictional criterion of 755 ILCS 5/11a et al was not complied with and it is an open secret that the ARDC is protecting the miscreants who have openly and notoriously separated Mary Sykes from her liberty and more than a million dollars in property.   Indeed, it is no secret that official sympathy is with the miscreants.    Indeed, Ms. Cynthia Farenga wrote to an ARDC attorney questioning the existence of a million dollars in gold coins.   Attorney Farenga reasoned that the coins could not exist as here they were out in the open and Ms. Gloria Sykes had not stolen them!   Somehow the fact that the plenary guardian has not denied that she without permission entered the safety deposit box and removed the million dollars in gold coins was lost in the ‘avarice tainted’ reasoning of Ms. Farenga.    
All of the foregoing is ‘old hat!’    It is important ‘old hat’ and should be the subject of a ‘grand jury’ investigation.
In Chicago, suing City Hall has proven historically to be unproductive.   No one listens and if you speak out or defend yourself you are the ‘bad guy’ and ****.     Exhibit 1 is the ARDC complaint against me and the clairvoyant assertion (without a scintilla of proof) that statutory protections are waived because certain hearing officers had a dream that two elderly sisters of Mary Sykes knew at some point in time that Mary had been railroaded.    The presiding judge in her deposition pointed out that ‘she would reach the same conclusion’ even if Mary’s sisters had been given the ‘due process’ notices required by Statute.    (I’ve previously forwarded the transcript).     Simply put, just like the Russian Gulags ‘elder cleansing’ is a forgone conclusion.    Legislation exists to be ignored and to aid and abet the ‘elder cleansing.’   
The recent ex-parte assault on the First Amendment in the Rotheimer case is part of the MO of elder cleansing and so common that it raised nary and eyebrow!    Indeed, coupled with the attempt by Mr. Larkin and the ARDC to silence attorneys who speak out concerning corruption in the Circuit Court it is safe to say – “who cares?”  
For the record – I care.    I care enough to write hundreds of e-mails and letters protesting and care enough to call your attention to the fact that so pervasive is the ‘cottage industry’ that even the ‘Clerk of the Court’ thumbs her nose at ‘due process’ and the legislative mandates.   Please read 755 ILCS 5/11a -10.     In particular, read the following words and phrases, to wit:
“The summons shall be printed in large, bold type and shall include the following notice:
You have been named as a respondent in a guardianship petition asking that you be declared a disabled person. If the court grants the petition, a guardian will be appointed for you. A copy of the guardianship petition is attached for your convenience.
The date and time of the hearing are:
The place where the hearing will occur is:
The Judge’s name and phone number is:
If a guardian is appointed for you, the guardian may be given the right to make all important personal decisions for you, such as where you may live, what medical treatment you may receive, what places you may visit, and who may visit you. A guardian may also be given the right to control and manage your money and other property, including your home, if you own one. You may lose the right to make these decisions for yourself.
You have the following legal rights:
(1) You have the right to be present at the court hearing.
(2) You have the right to be represented by a lawyer, either one that you retain, or one appointed by the Judge.
(3) You have the right to ask for a jury of six persons to hear your case.
(4) You have the right to present evidence to the court and to confront and cross-examine witnesses.
(5) You have the right to ask the Judge to appoint an independent expert to examine you and give an opinion about your need for a guardian.
(6) You have the right to ask that the court hearing be closed to the public.
(7) You have the right to tell the court whom you prefer to have for your guardian.
You do not have to attend the court hearing if you do not want to be there. If you do not attend, the Judge may appoint a guardian if the Judge finds that a guardian would be of benefit to you. The hearing will not be postponed or canceled if you do not attend.
            This morning I went to the clerk’s office and requested a copy of the summons.  (You can obtain it on-line, and it is identical).    For CCP 0201 A is attached as exhibit 1.    Most interesting is the fact that so entrenched in the Probate Court proceedings is ‘corruption’ that the proper forms are not provided by the Court.    If you use the forms provided by the Court you do not comply the jurisdictional aspect of 11a – 10.    Of course,  Mr. Larkin and his staff,  the dozens of guardian ad litem, guardians, lawyers and judges are were amazingly silent as to the fact that the Summons did not comply with the Statute, just as they were prior to the decision in the Sodini case being raised.[1]
            As it is rare that 11a – 10 is complied with, what the form summons connotes is not really relevant.  (See Judge Connor’s evidence deposition).   Complaints are muted as Mr. Larkin and the ARDC act in concert with the miscreant, therefore a closed circle exists.   Only a fool like the undersigned would insist on his/her First Amendment Rights when Mr. Larkin owns the mechanism to pull an attorney’s license.  (Does this remind you of Greylord?) .    This ‘fool’ this morning went to the Probate Clerk’s office (and the clerk’s website) and pulled for CCP 0201A.     It does not even make an effort to comply with the statutory mandate!    A copy of CCP 0201A is attached as exhibit 1 so that you can examine it yourself.
            For Mr. Larkin’s benefit, I am not repentant for writing this letter to you and more than I was repentant for my exercise of my First Amendment Right in writing to the Attorney General of the United States.    The issue herein is not me!    The issue is the fact that we are witnessing the three stages of ‘elder cleansing[2] .’   1) Garner a senior citizen into bondage, 2) sequester his/her assets, and 3) destroy his/her will to live by isolation and heavy doses of drugs.    The senior dies when convenient and is quickly cremated.    
            I’ve respectfully requested and continue to request an HONEST complete and comprehensive investigation by Federal Authorities of this entire pernicious situation.   As we do not live either in Russia or North Korea there is no reason why senior citizens should live in fear.    There is no reason that Attorneys should not enjoy equal protection of the law and the First Amendment  and there is no reason that I should not exercise the said right in public open and notoriously.     No public official has the right or the jurisdiction to impede political or content related speech.  (See 42 USCA 1983)
Ken  Ditkowsky
Cc:    Mr. J. Larkin, Attorney Registration an
[1] The only explanation for this problem is that ‘elder cleansing’ is so embodied in the fabric of the Probate Division that the ‘law be damned!’    There are senior citizens out there to be exploited!    It is very difficult to forget the fact that Adam Stern called my office and threatened me in an attempt to thwart my desire to do a FRCP 11 investigation prior to accepting an assignment offered me by the Friends and family of Mary Sykes.  
[2] Elder cleansing is a form of human trafficking and the sister of ‘racial cleansing’ and ‘ethnic cleansing’   
Ken Ditkowsky



My comments:


I for one would like to know why the Cook County form is not compliant with the Illinois Probate Act statute in that it is NOT in large bold type, easy for a senior to read and study?


How does that happen?


The best attorneys I know reprint the form when involved in a probate case, and put it in large, 14 or 16 point bolded font.


Who does this to seniors?

Medicare cuts to Highly Profitable “advantage” type programs have taken effect

While one recent client has divulged to me the fact that “Medicare Advantage” programs have operated at high profitability levels, while engaging in many shennanigans of cutting services, denying claims arbitrarily, etc., the below article explains much more.


If you know of a senior enrolled in one of these programs you might want to think again.  I have already published news stories on these companies denying claims unfairly (woman with broken back story), and I hope to publish a new complaint soon with permission of the client.

Bush, during his term in office, started these programs because he said he wanted to “shift them to the private sector” and away from government.  So he offered lucrative incentives.  Those are still there and the insurance companies have profited at outstanding rates of return.  Problem is, from the article and many stories, they don’t do as good of a job.


From Atty Ken Ditkowsky, a Statutory Cheat Sheet

See below:

Statutory criterion
I. Basis for appointing a Guardian or declaring a person in need:
1. Demonstration of need for Guardian;
a. if it has been demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that because of
his disability he lacks sufficient understanding or capacity to make or
communicate responsible decisions concerning the care of his person, 755
Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/11a-3 (West)
b. if it has been demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that because
of his disability he is unable to manage his estate or financial affairs 755 Ill.
Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/11a-3 (West)
2. Venue: Venue. If the alleged ward is a resident of this State, the proceeding shall
be instituted in the court of the county in which he resides. 755 Ill. Comp. Stat.
Ann. 5/11a-7 (West)
3. Petition: The petition for adjudication of disability and for the appointment of a
guardian of the estate or the person or both of an alleged disabled person must state,
if known or reasonably ascertainable: (a) the relationship and interest of the petitioner
to the respondent; (b) the name, date of birth, and place of residence of the
respondent; (c) the reasons for the guardianship; (d) the name and post office address
of the respondent’s guardian, if any, or of the respondent’s agent or agents appointed
under the Illinois Power of Attorney Act,1 if any; (e) the name and post office
addresses of the nearest relatives of the respondent in the following order: (1) the
spouse and adult children, parents and adult brothers and sisters, if any; if none, (2)
nearest adult kindred known to the petitioner; (f) the name and address of the person
with whom or the facility in which the respondent is residing; (g) the approximate
value of the personal and real estate; (h) the amount of the anticipated annual gross
income and other receipts; (i) the name, post office address and in case of an
individual, the age, relationship to the respondent and occupation of the proposed
guardian 755 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/11a-8 (West)
4. Procedure: Upon the filing of a petition pursuant to Section 11a-8, the court
shall set a date and place for hearing to take place within 30 days. The court shall
appoint a guardian ad litem to report to the court concerning the respondent’s best
interests consistent with the provisions of this Section, 55 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann.
5/11a-10 (West)
5. Payment of Fees: “the court may enter an order for the petitioner to pay all such
fees or such amounts as the respondent or the respondent’s estate may be unable to
pay 755 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/11a-10 (West)
Illinois Statutory PlanPage 1
2. Right of alleged disabled person to trial.
Respondent is entitled to be represented by counsel, to demand a jury of 6 persons,
to present evidence, and to confront and cross-examine all witnesses. The hearing
may be closed to the public on request of the respondent, the guardian ad litem, or
appointed or other counsel for the respondent. Unless excused by the court upon a
showing that the respondent refuses to be present or will suffer harm if required to attend,
the respondent shall be present at the hearing. 755 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/11a-11 (West)
Right to Counsel “b) The court (1) may appoint counsel for the respondent, if the court
finds that the interests of the respondent will be best served by the appointment, and (2)
shall appoint counsel upon respondent’s request or if the respondent takes a position
adverse to that of the guardian ad litem. The respondent shall be permitted to obtain the
appointment of counsel either at the hearing or by any written or oral request
communicated to the court prior to the hearing. The summons shall inform the
respondent of this right to obtain appointed counsel. The court may allow counsel
for the respondent reasonable compensation. “ 755 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/11a-10
3. Criterion for the form of Summons
The summons shall be printed in LARGE, BOLD TYPE and shall include the following
You have been named as a respondent in a guardianship petition asking that you be
declared a disabled person. If the court grants the petition, a guardian will be appointed
for you. A copy of the guardianship petition is attached for your convenience.
The date and time of the hearing are:
The place where the hearing will occur is:
The Judge’s name and phone number is: 755 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/11a-10 (West)
4. Utilization of the Statutory authority..
(b) Guardianship shall be utilized only as is necessary to promote the well-being
of the disabled person, to protect him from neglect, exploitation, or abuse, and to
encourage development of his maximum self-reliance and independence.
Guardianship shall be ordered only to the extent necessitated by the individual’s
actual mental, physical and adaptive limitations. 755 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann.
5/11a-3 (West)
5. Right to Counsel:
Illinois Statutory PlanPage 2
“(b) The court (1) may appoint counsel for the respondent, if the court finds that the
interests of the respondent will be best served by the appointment, and (2) shall appoint
counsel upon respondent’s request or if the respondent takes a position adverse to
that of the guardian ad litem. THE RESPONDENT SHALL BE PERMITTED TO
PRIOR TO THE HEARING. The summons shall inform the respondent of this right to
obtain appointed counsel. The court may allow counsel for the respondent reasonable
compensation.” 755 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/11a-10 (West)
6. Appointment Temporary and Notice to the disabled person.
§ 11a-19. Notice of right to seek modification. At the time of the appointment of a
guardian the court shall inform the ward of his right under Section 11a-20 to petition for
termination of adjudication of disability, revocation of the letters of guardianship of the
estate or person, or both, or modification of the duties of the guardian and shall give the
ward a written statement explaining this right and the procedures for petitioning the
court. The notice shall be in large, bold type and shall be in a format similar to the
notice of rights required under subsection (e) of Section 11a-10 of this Act. 755 Ill.
Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/11a-19 (West)
7. Service of Summons on the alleged disabled person1:
the respondent shall be personally served with a copy of the petition and a summons not
less than 14 days before the hearing. The summons shall be printed in large, bold type
and shall include the following notice:
You have been named as a respondent in a guardianship petition asking that you be
declared a disabled person. If the court grants the petition, a guardian will be appointed
for you. A copy of the guardianship petition is attached for your convenience.
The date and time of the hearing are:
The place where the hearing will occur is:
The Judge’s name and phone number is:
If a guardian is appointed for you, the guardian may be given the right to make all
important personal decisions for you, such as where you may live, what medical
treatment you may receive, what places you may visit, and who may visit you. A
guardian may also be given the right to control and manage your money and other
1 Paragraph 11a- 10 also requires the following warning, to with:
You do not have to attend the court hearing if you do not want to be there. If you do not attend, the Judge
may appoint a guardian if the Judge finds that a guardian would be of benefit to you. The hearing will not
be postponed or canceled if you do not attend.
TO COURT AND TELL THE JUDGE. 755 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/11a-10 (West)
Illinois Statutory PlanPage 3
property, including your home, if you own one. You may lose the right to make these
decisions for yourself.
You have the following legal rights:
(1) You have the right to be present at the court hearing.
(2) You have the right to be represented by a lawyer, either one that you retain, or
one appointed by the Judge.
(3) You have the right to ask for a jury of six persons to hear your case.
(4) You have the right to present evidence to the court and to confront and crossexamine
(5) You have the right to ask the Judge to appoint an independent expert to
examine you and give an opinion about your need for a guardian.
(6) You have the right to ask that the court hearing be closed to the public.
(7) You have the right to tell the court whom you prefer to have for your
8. Sodini Notices2:
(f) Notice of the time and place of the hearing shall be given by the petitioner by mail or
in person to those persons, including the proposed guardian, whose names and addresses
appear in the petition and who do not waive notice, not less than 14 days before the
hearing. 755 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/11a-10 (West)
2 The court acquires jurisdiction over the allegedly disabled person by personal service upon him of a copy of the
petition and summons not less than 14 days before the hearing. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1989, ch. 110½, par. 11a–10(e); see
McCormick v. Blaine (1931), 345 Ill. 461, 178 N.E. 195.) It is also a jurisdictional requirement that the petitioner
give notice of the time and place of the hearing by mail or in person to the nearest living relatives of the allegedly
disabled person not less than 14 days before the hearing. Ill.Rev.Stat.1989, ch. 110½, par. 11a–10(f); see In re
Guardianship of Sodini (1988), 172 Ill.App.3d 1055, 123 Ill.Dec. 67, 527 N.E.2d 530. In re Estate of Steinfeld, 158
Ill. 2d 1, 13, 630 N.E.2d 801, 807 (1994)
Illinois Statutory PlanPage 4

His comments:

created this ‘cheat sheet’ so that the exact words of the statute were available in one simple form and an easy reference would exist.

The object of my quest is to get a groundswell going to induce the Courts to do exactly what the legislature intended.   Such a scenario would be very inconvenient and eliminate the conspiracy and alliance of certain miscreants on the ‘good will’ of certain people willing to prostitute themselves on the ‘cross’ of ‘elder cleansing.’  The tragic situation is that the Illinois Legislature outdid themselves and produced something that we can be proud of.    unfortunately, as so often occurs the miscreants amongst us ignored the wise words of the statute and placed our senior citizens in reasonable fear of bondage, deprivation of liberty and property rights.   Indeed, until law enforcement acts every senior citizen has to fear that he has one of the miscreants in his/her future.
The human trafficking that Denise, Gloria Sykes, John Wyman, Bev Cooper, et al have been fighting is unfortunately so lucrative that progress has been very slow.
When this case is tied to the Estate of Lieberman 391 Ill App3d 883 the perfidy is crystallized.   The ‘sellout’ of the public interest by the elder cleansers if complete and total.   Any attorney who complains does so at the risk of his license and a meritless proceeding before the Illinois Attorney Registration and Discipline Commission claiming that they, rather than the Supreme Court make the rule of law.   So pernicious is the effort that an IARDC attorney had the temerity to ask me on cross examination if I was repentant for complaining of the activities of GALs AS, CF, PS and some other illuminates to the Justice Department and in particular Mr. Holder.
As you can see – I am not going to give up my First Amendment Rights.
Ken Ditkowsky


Atty Ken Ditkowsy is invited to speak at a press conference on probate cases

and tell the whole story of just how probate works.

One recent comment made to me by a blog fan was that “the Probate courts are no longer operating as court systems where justice is listened to and enacted.  Rather, they have become “business dealing” fora where connected and favored attorneys and judges come together to “conduct business” behind closed doors and with “secret files and documents.”  Juicy estates are handled by the “proper judges” who control campaign funds.  These favored judges then hand out “the legal business” to well connected attorneys who put them in their position and keep them there and keep the political system running efficiently.  This analysis was stated to me by someone who has been heavily involved and studied “the system” in this state and others for many long years hearing hundreds and hundreds of complaints!

This all creates the dichotomy we see in “the business” of probate court.  Sykes is ignored, no one cares that Alice Gore’s teeth were pulled when she was isolated for 6 months at age 99, no one cares that Mary Sykes was last seen with filthy teeth and pyrrohea (which is life threatening) and she didn’t have her partial in.  In public, in the late afternoon, she was toothless in front.

No wonder why after talking to Adam Stern all video and pics had to be deleted under threat of arrest and no wonder why Commander Krammerer never responded to my emails and faxes!

The Naperville Police department clearly steps and fetches for the political elite.

Gloria’s complaints of Elder Abuse were deemed unfounded, even when there were 4 witnesses.

I would like to hear from the Naperville police, but after a couple of faxes/emails, I will drop it because the ARDC will ask me if I’m sorry I asked them to do their jobs and ignored abuse and the violation of constitutional rights to myself, Gloria and Scott Evans, a close family friend.  The ARDC will then ignore the fact that Mary was in a nursing home and wanted to go home and that was not reported to the court, that CT caused her physical pain and acted (per her usual) with lack of sympathy, compassion or feeling near Mary, that Mary’s teeth were filthy, that she had no partial in place, that she wanted to be with Gloria and CT screamed out “NEVER!” to her.  How cruel can a situation get?

I hope to see Mary because I care about her, but PS won’t return my emails. I have visited nursing homes for years and played music to the elderly.

The lies march on and on.

See below, and if anyone can, please write letters and fax the Naperville police department, the ARDC and demand the justice these seniors deserve.


From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Sep 10, 2013 11:30 AM
To: Denise R
Cc: “matt_abbott@kirk.senate.gov” , Eric Holder , Cook County States Attorney , “civilrights.cv@ic.fbi.gov” , “tips@tribune.com” , SUNTIMES , “60m@cbsnews.com” <60m@cbsnews.com>, j ditkowsky , Harry Heckert , NASGA , probate sharks , “illinois.ardc@gmail.com” , “IllinoisLawyerNow@isba.org” , JoAnne Denison , Cook County States Attorney , “civilrights.cv@ic.fbi.gov”
Subject: Re: Stop Guardian Abuse Press Conference 9-11-13 @6p

Ms. Rothemier,
Your telephone call to me informing me that the guardian is reputed to have gone into Court to try to stop you from holding a ‘press conference’ and discussing openly the guardianship abuse situation is absolutely outrageous.   I’ve copied law enforcement to alert them to another incident of patent ‘civil rights’ violations attempted under ‘color of statute.’   I’ve also copied the IARDC as it is a criminal act to violate a citizen’s ‘civil rights’ and even a pre-teen seeking to enter high school is aware that speech such as you are engaging in is protected and prior censorship has been prohibited since the United States Supreme Court entered it order in Near vs. Minn.   Thus any attorney who participates in such conduct has not only violated his/her attorney oath, but is also culpable.   (rule 137 prohibits and attorney from filing meritless motions)
As I understand it, the Court did not enter any order and therefore, the threat that you received is ‘naked!’   The threat can therefore be ignored.   Had an order of Court been entered, it would be void, as the First Amendment bars even the Courts from issuing ad hoc restraints on First Amendment Rights as to people not before the Court.   The advice that I and other lawyers routinely give is to obey even void court orders.
That is not to say that the incident and the threat is not serious.   It is serious because whomever went to Court to attempt to prevent you from having a ‘press conference’ demonstrated a total disregard for the Rule of Law and even more seriously believed that he/she had such influence with the Court that the Court would violate its oath and enter an order that it lack jurisdiction to enter.
This all is consistent with the ‘elder cleansing’ scenario and the perceived corruption that so many citizens have written to the IARDC, law enforcement, and their elected representatives concerning.   Terrorist assaults are predicted for 9/11, but who thought that our home-grown variety would promulgate an assault on the Constitution on the anniversary of the destruction of the ‘twin towers!’   ‘BIRDS OF A FEATHER!’
As you can see I have notified law enforcement of this latest assault on the Constitution.   I believe one or more lawyers are active in this attempted criminal usage of ‘color of statute’ to deprive a citizen of her First Amendment Right.   I therefore have copied the IARDC so that they have an opportunity to investigate and do something to protect the public!  For the record, the IARDC is supposed to protect the public from acts by lawyers that are detrimental to the public.   As Freedom of Speech is a ‘core value’ the alleged attempt to prevent you from exercizing your First Amendment Rights is reprehensible.   Yours, mine, and those of every other person in the United States of America RIGHT TO SPEAK OUT AND BE HEARD AS TO ANY CONTENT RELATED (OR POLITICAL UTTERANCE should be zealously protected by law enforcement, OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS and the IARDC.
(see 42 USCA 1983)
Ken Ditkowsky



From Gloria Sykes, a probate victim…agreement with Ken’s Letter to ABA

Dear ****,

I found this letter to the American Bar Association to ‘say it all’ as a look into not just the Mary G. Sykes case, but an overall as to what appears to be a cancer in America with attorneys now losing their law licenses because they speak out about the injustices or lawlessness of many of our courts that operate under statutes–mandateswhich legislation has determined are the laws upon which a court(s) acquired jurisdiction over a subject and person. This lawlessness is rampant in America, ****.. and sadly, attorneys who are standing up and saying, “No” — on blogs or writing letters to the agencies who, should investigate and stop the lawlessness — are being disbarred by government agencies set up to protect you, me and all citizens from lawyers, that include judges, of violations of the Professional Codes of Ethics.

The subsequent ’emotional water-boarding’ that has done irreversible and unrepairable damage to, the elderly like my mother, Mary G. Sykes, the disabled, and to all people who attempt to expose the lawlessness, save the elderly or disabled persons’ life, or even as in this case, ask for an honest investigation or blog the facts, are threatened or are disbarred,  sanctioned, denied access to the courts, or as in my case, my assets frozen then seized, all of my intellectual property, and valuables stolen, destroyed and/or discarded, my home put up for sale, and all my motions and appeals dismissed, without cause. Further, ****, the goal is to tire us out and shut us up so the cottage industry can continue to thrive.  Guardianship abuses of the elderly and disabled are as rampant as the stories and written below.

Please publish on your **** website and maybe, just maybe, it will encourage you to do the honest, thorough investigation and report the facts —

Thank you.  See below.

Gloria Jean Sykes 
Bon Ami Productions, Inc. 

From Ken Ditkowsky – a letter to the ABA on the Sykes case

September 4, 2013
American Bar Association
Committee on Civil Rights
321 North Clark Street
Chicago, IL  60654-7598
Re:   The growing scandal of ‘elder cleansing’ and the campaign to deny lawyers First Amendment Rights.
Dear Sirs,
Lawyers are being intimidated and denied their civil rights when they are faced with the situation of objecting to guardianships imposed on senior citizens that are essentially death sentences for the affected seniors[1].  The Mary Sykes case 09 P 4585 pending in the Circuit Court of Cook County is a poster board case and an example of every act of impropriety that you can imagine befalling a victim of ‘elder cleansing.’  Unfortunately, Mary Sykes is one of many that are pending nationwide.
Illinois has a terrific law that addresses the issue of guardianship, 755 ILCS 5/11a – 1 et seq.  This law provides protection, supervision, and more protection for the alleged disabled person.  The only problem with the law that lawyers can complain concerning is that it (755 ILCS 5/11a – 1 et seq) is ignored.  In Sykes 1) the petition filed to institute proceedings is defective – it fails to disclose all the required information; 2) the venue is defective – Mary resides in DuPage – not Cook County; 3) the Sheriff reports that he has no record of Service of summons being had on Mary; 4) the protections of 11a -10(f) i.e. giving 14 days prior notice to close relatives was not provided.  5) Mary was denied an attorney, denied a jury trial, Mary was never proved to be incompetent by clear and convincing evidence and was denied every right determined necessary by the legislature, including that Mary had pending a verified petition for an order of protection against the very person that was appointed as her guardian.  Sodini 172 Ill App3d 1055,  Steinfeld 158 Il2d 1.
Outraged neighbors, family friends and relatives became frustrated that they could not reverse the “railroading of Mary” – who they believed was not incompetent.  The family and friends then engaged me to look into the problem.  I started my inquiry and then received a threatening telephone call from one of the two guardian ad litem.  The GAL threatened me that if I continued my investigation I would be sanctioned by the court.  As I had not submitted myself to the Court, I was not concerned.  I also do not take kindly to threats!    No matter, the attorney for the guardian also added a threat and they filed a meritless Rule 137 petition against me knowing that the Court lacked jurisdiction .
The threat resulted in sanctions being assessed against me in an amount of approximately $5000.00.  As the Court had no jurisdiction, I accepted the sanction and to the disgust of the Judge, and the ‘judicial officials’ (including an attorney at the IARDC), I filed a successful appeal.  The Guardian ad litem described the vacation and dismissal of the non-jurisdictional sanctions to be a “technicality”.
The IARDC got into the picture and I am being accused of conduct unbecoming a lawyer. My crime is not attorning to the ‘cottage industry’ of ‘elder cleansing.’  Apparently the IARDC does not believe in the efficacy of the First Amendment.  To my utter surprise and dismay I discovered that not only am I not alone in this assault on the First Amendment, but, dozens of lawyers are routinely being intimidated into silence. If the intimidation is not successful, the lawyers are then subjected to possible loss of license and/or suspensions.
To illustrate the obscenity, I am certain that every lawyer in the American Bar Association (except those in the employ of some the State attorney regulatory agencies) has read the First Amendment, and is aware that one of the key protective acts is the right to complain to law enforcement.  At my hearing board proceedings a lawyer for the IARDC wandered over to me on cross examination and asked me if I was repentant for writing a letter to the Attorney General of the United States.  The gross lack of understanding of the ‘core values’ of America shocked me and the gallery of several dozen people who came to watch and lend support to me as I attempted to explain that ‘lawyers are also citizens of the United States of America.     Most just of the onlookers shook their heads and remembered that in Greylord 15 judges went to jail and dozens suddenly retired.
Cutting legal hairs is non-productive; however, from time to time it has to be done.  The Organized Bar should be addressing the issue of Attorney Civil Rights rather than sitting back and watching Lawyers being harassed and intimidated for protecting the rights of senior citizens.  I from time to time copy the Illinois Bar Association as to my protests as I have paid dues for fifty some years and it appears that all the Bar does is pose for pictures, and avoid issues that affect the ability of their members to adequately and properly serve the community.  The American Bar has demonstrated a similar disinterest and I am hoping that before we lose our civil and human rights the Lawyers’ Associations like the American Bar Association and the Illinois Bar Association will act to require those who seek to regulate us have at least the degree of understanding of the Constitution that the preteens of Illinois must demonstrate to obtain admission into high school.
Allowing attorneys to be intimidated by miscreants and sit quietly as ‘elder cleansing’ is protected by lawyer regulators is not in the best interests of anyone.  The regulator’s jurisdiction is a delegation from the Supreme Court of the State.  It is not a ‘Devine right!’  If the State does not have the right to censor the speech of a citizen (including a lawyer) the delegation of authority is absent in the regulator.  The recent Supreme Court of the United States cases are clear in pointing out they protections of the First Amendment for everyone.   See: Brown 131 S. Ct 2729, Snyder v Phelps 131 S. Ct 1207, Alvarez 132 S. Ct 2537, Citizen United 558 US 320.
We all know that every administrative body has a tendency to attempt to augment its authority.  We laugh it off when it does not affect us with:  “government cannot plan and execute a one car funeral”   Unfortunately, Power corrupts and the greater the power the greater the corruption.  The First Amendment has not been amended to eliminate the rights of attorneys to protection, nor is there a single appropriate distinction that can bar an attorney from exercising his total privileges and immunities under the Bill of Rights.
Mesibov vs Allan[2]  411 F 3d 712 addresses the issue of what happens when people walk into a courtroom.  Can a court punish a lawyer for referring to the Judge, or his opponent in a derogatory manner?  Indeed, it is well recognized that it can.  How then is this squared with the First Amendment?  The First Amendment does not create extreme rights.  For instance, it does not give the right to cry ‘fire’ in a crowded movie theatre.  Nor does the First Amendment give the right act crude, rude, or abusive in a courtroom.  The Judge has a duty to keep order and to provide an orderly forum for the resolution of disputes.
The Mezibov case deals with a prosecutor retaliating against an attorney for the attorney exercising his first Amendment Rights.   In reaching its decision the Court does not consider is the fact that the First Amendment is a two way street.   It appropriately choses to focus on Mr. Mezibov’s claim and therefore it ignores that fact that the prosecutor’s (Mr. Allan) statements were protected under the First Amendment.  That said, the prosecutor’s statements – while trite and stupid – were statements that made Mr. Mezibov subject to ridicule.  The issue presented was not whether the prosecutor defamed Mezibov, but where he committed a civil rights violation in defaming Mezibov.  Mezibov brought his action under 42 USCA 1983 as the prosecutor never stepped out of his public persona.  The Court considered the action in that manner and ruled that the Court proceeding obviated any First Amendment protection – in this limited instance.
What the Mezibov Court did was explore the dichotomy of relationships and point out that in the limited specter of the courtroom – like the deck of a ship – the Judge is King.  As the Judge is King no one else has any rights and the Judge takes complete charge.  Thus, there is no Bill of Rights for anyone.   Thus, the Court craved the familiar niche into the law that allows a Judge to issue a ‘gag order’ or punish a person in his Courtroom for contempt.     If the judge reacts badly, the Court of Appeals provides a remedy.
HOWEVER, the Mezibov Court and the Supreme Court of the United States Supreme Court are both very careful to make it completely certain that except for this exception the First Amendment is alive and well.    The Courts do not delegate any jurisdiction to the Bar regulators by these said decisions, but merely mark out certain exceptions to Constitutional protections[3].  Thus, I and every other lawyer is free to be critical of any public official, judicial official, IARDC official etc. at any time and place that I desire with few if any limitations.  THIS IS WHAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT SAYS.
There is no general delegation to the IARDC or anyone else to regulate the words that I say!  As a citizen who has a law degree no one can censor any statement I make no matter how outrageous, stupid, or embarrassing.  Indeed, I can be critical of Mr. Larkin, Judge Connors, Judge Stuart, Adam Stern, Cynthia Farenga, Peter Schmiedel, Gloria Sykes, etc.  Just to illustrate, I can even make jokes about each of them.  That is my FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT. Article 1 of the Illinois Constitution affirms this right.  The Bivens type cases (directed at Federal officials), makes it clear that America has no second class citizens.
The Supreme Court of Illinois does not have the right to examine and determine that an Illinois citizen (including a member of the Court) does not have the right to be critical of Mr. Larkin, Judge Connors etcIt is not an ethical violation for, a judge, or even a lowly lawyer to be critical of members of the judiciary, the legislature, the executive branch etc.  The First Amendment even allows ordinary citizens and lowly lawyers to publicly state that a Judge is dishonest.  Indeed, I have an absolute right to write Attorney General Holder and complain that Mary Sykes’ liberty and property were taken from her.  I can further complain that a Judge did nothing when Alice Gore’s fillings were removed so that a Court appointed guardian could retrieve the gold therein. (which was not inventoried).  Indeed, I can even complain about the conditions that Ms. Wyman was held under.  These conditions resulted in her being sexually assaulted.
The importance of the Mezibov case is the fact that it unmasked the intellectual dishonesty that is so clear in the State regulatory scheme that attorneys have to live with because their Bar Associations are impotent or uncaring.  The Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission and its director, Mr. Larkin full well know that they have no jurisdiction to prosecute attorneys for exercising their First Amendment Rights. – His delegation is to regulate actions such as dishonesty.  A lawyer who bribes a judge falls within Mr. Larkin’s jurisdiction – not the lawyer who reports the bribe to law enforcement.    Quite frankly, until I became acquainted with ‘elder cleanings’ it never occurred to me that requesting law enforcement to do an HONEST complete and comprehensive investigation would be considered to be an offense for which I could lose my license.
This in a nutshell is the problem.  My First Amendment Right allows me to say to my Bar Association that I am aggrieved that Mr. Larkin is disinterested in criminal actions of certain lawyers and judges who have clout and use the same to deprive a senior citizen of her liberty and property.    My said First Amendment Right  further gives me the absolute right to complain that Mr. Larkin (IARDC) is interested in silencing the report of lawyers to law enforcement who in good conscience are sickened by such avarice[4].
We pay dues to the Bar Associations to not play dead when lawyer rights are at stake, but, to stand up and be counted when an organization or organ of the State imposes a gulag, National Socialist principles, et al on legal practitioners and members of the Bar.  It is too bad when the peon members of the Bar Association have to nod their heads when a lay person says: “what do you call it when a busload of lawyers drowns in the river?” “A good start!”
Members of the Bar in Arizona, California, Indiana, Ohio, Illinois and many other states are being intimidated.  Most are afraid to speak their minds and have to deal with in addition to ‘elder cleansing,’ biased judges who will not recuse themselves, corrupt judges who everyone knows are wired but are afraid to speak out, etc.  The State Bar regulators, like Mr. Larkin have taken it upon themselves to attempt to silence dissent and cries to law enforcement.  This ‘ethical cleansing’ is going to either destroy any confidence in the judicial system or bring disgrace to the entire bar.
The Ten Commandments, which were the basis of law, have been removed from the house of the Law (the courthouse).  Many of us (including the undersigned) believe that indeed the Ten Commandments created a hostile work environment for the lawyers and judges.
Where does the legal community and American Bar Association stand?
Yours very truly,
Kenneth Ditkowsky
cc:    Illinois Bar Association, Illinois Attorney Registration and Discipline Commission.

[1] While 11a – 3 of the act provides that the act is to be used only to provide a senior with the help that he or she required, an examination of the Court record reveals that the appointment of a guardianship is a loss of all liberty and property rights.    The effect is a ‘death sentence!’
[2] The Supreme Court of the United States in adopting the Justice Black/Justice Douglas criterion to the enforcement of the First Amendment has blurred the distinctions that Bar groups have made to justify reining in ‘radical lawyers’ and lawyers who are active in opposing ‘racial cleansing,’ ‘ethnic cleansing,’ and other forms of social change abhorred by the ‘status quo.’
[3] In a lawyer’s home, when confronted by an irate teenager concerning some parental inconsistency the Bill of Rights is irrelevant.     The First Amendment is a limitation on STATE POWER in just about every circumstance.   There is no delegation to the Judiciary, the Executive, or the Legislative branches to determine that a lawyer cannot speak on the subject of x, y, or z.
[4] Elder cleansing is a three step process.   Step one is to railroad a disabled person into a guardianship.   Step two is to allow the guardian to ravage the assets of the ward.   Step three is the ‘death of the ward.’    Dozens of affected citizens have written to their elected representatives, Mr. Larkin at the IARDC, the ACLU, and anyone who would listen.    Blogs broadcast on a daily basis the atrocities; however, the only visible action is the ARDC and similar entities attempting to intimidate and silence the lawyers who speak out.   Ever statutory protections such as 47 USCA 230 do not deter the lawyer regulators.
Ken Ditkowsky