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?

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

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