Everyone knows that a credit report, pursuant to federal laws must have the permission of the creditor in order to pull a credit report. Yes, even government officials. Imagine Ken’s surprise when the IARDC filed a motion to pull and destroy a certain email where an IARDC investigator was asked to pull the credit reports on “two Illinois attorneys” without their knowledge.
Here is his response:
MOTION TO DISMISS PROCEEDINGS BASED UPON DEMONSTRATED BIAS & VIOLATION OF 735 ILCS 110 & TO RECONSIDER ORDER OF OCTOBER 2, 2013 AS UNETHICAL AND WRONGFUL SPOILATION OF EVIDENCE.
Now comes Kenneth Ditkowsky and states as follows:
1. The respondent brings this Motion to Dismiss even though he is aware that such motions are not favored. He is compelled however to bring this motion as the order entered by this panel on October 2, 2013 is so offensive to the Administration of Justice that it taints these proceedings and the entity that promulgates it.
2. A copy of the order entered on October 2, 2013 is attached hereto and made part hereof as if set forth in detail.
3) The IARDC claims that the document to be destroyed was inadvertently placed in the official court record. Such a claim is offensive on its face in that the document was part of another document that was admitted into evidence. In order for a document to be admitted into evidence the said document has to be offered into evidence by one or more of the attorney who are appearing for a party to the litigation proceeding. In this instant case Mr. Larkin, the administrator was represented when the document was placed into evidence by two attorneys on the staff of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois. www.lardc.org
4) That prior to an exhibit being admitted into evidence the offering attorneys must submit the document to the opposing attorneys. In this case there was Mr. Hyman and the respondent.
5) That a document to be admitted must be reviewed by the trier of fact. In this situation there were three members of the hearing panel. They have to decide if the document is to be admitted into evidence. There were two attorneys and one lay person on the panel.
6) That in the case of Disciplinary Commission there is also a host of clerks, supervising attorneys, the administrator etc. who must review a document before it is entered into evidence either in whole or part.
7) The suggestion of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois. www.lardc.org
. that any part of exhibit 3 was placed inadvertently into the Court record is patently absurd as facts which everyone knows to be facts must be ignored. Not one of the six attorneys and numerous other people who had the opportunity and the duty to review the document that this panel has ordered to be destroyed voiced any opposition to the admission of the entire exhibit 3 into evidence, or noted anything that would make the document to be inadmissible, irrelevant or otherwise of such a nature that spolitation of evidence could be justified. In fact, upon reflection it is the memory of the respondent that the document that the IARDC and this panel desired to be destroyed was a recent addition to the official record maintained by the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois. www.lardc.org
In point of fact the said document is evidence of possible misconduct by the staff of the IARDC.
8) That the destruction of official records in a pending case is unprecedented however, it is consistent with the general tenor of this case. As indicated by the Farenga (smoking gun letter – not produced as part of discovery by the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois as part of discovery even though it refers to the respondent) the gravamen of these proceedings is the respondent’s exercise of his First Amendment Rights pursuant to the United States Constitution
. As there has never been a delegation to the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois to regulate, impede or otherwise limit that First Amendment
Rights of respondent or any other citizen, it is clear that Mr. Larkin and the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois and its panel and commission simply lack jurisdiction to impede or hinder the respondents Constitutional Rights..
9) That 42 USCA 1983 protects citizens from invasions of their Constitutional Rights under color of statute. 735 ILCS 110 is the State of Illinois version of the law protecting Illinois citizens from the use of proceedings such as the instant proceedings from interference with First Amendment Rights. 735 ILCS 110/5 reiterates the policy of the State of Illinois. It is respectfully suggested that 1) Ms. Farenga’s letter,2) the failure of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois to call as witnesses the people with actual knowledge of whether or not any or all of the statements allegedly made by the respondent were true or not, i.e. Carolyn Troepe, Gloria Sykes, Yolanda Bakken et al and 3) the order of October 2, 2013 all strongly suggest that these proceedings are being conducted for the purpose of preventing the respondent from speaking out on the now documented violation and implementation of the Established policy of the State of Illinois. The County of DiWitt case, states:
“An established public policy exists in Illinois to protect the elderly from abuse or harm. The Nursing Home Care Act (210 ILCS 45/1–101 et seq. (West 1996)) and the Elder Abuse and Neglect Act (320 ILCS 20/1 et seq. (West 1996)) are clear examples of the legislature’s intent to protect the elderly from neglect, abuse, and degrading treatment in nursing homes and domestic situations. Alden Nursing Center—Morrow, Inc. v. Lumpkin, 259 Ill.App.3d 1027, 1033, 198 Ill.Dec. 7, 632 N.E.2d 66, 70 (1994). *638 Further evidence of the public policy of protecting senior citizens can be found in criminal statutes that increase the classification and punishment for those crimes committed against victims over the age of 60. See 720 ILCS 5/12–4.6 (West 1996) (the offense of battery is upgraded to an aggravated battery when defendant knowingly causes bodily harm to an individual of 60 years of age or older).” Cnty. of De Witt v. Am. Fed’n of State, Cnty., Mun. Employees, Council 31, 298 Ill. App. 3d 634, 637-38, 699 N.E.2d 163, 166 (1998)
10) Even more compelling is the fact that by statute, the respondent’s actions are protected, to wit:
(a-7) A person making a report under this Act in the belief that it is in the alleged victim’s best interest shall be immune from criminal or civil liability or professional disciplinary action on account of making the report, notwithstanding any requirements concerning the confidentiality of information with respect to such eligible adult which might otherwise be applicable. 320 ILCS 20/4 (emphasis mine)
11) That it is very clear to respondent that he cannot obtain a fair and impartial hearing before this panel as the criterion of ‘clear and convincing evidence’ not only has been obviated, but, clairvoyance has been substituted for testimony, and the Rule of Law as set forth in the recent Supreme Court of the United States has been vitiated. (Respondent’s brief specifies the particular cases and the fact that the First Amendment is the ‘core value’ of America upon which our entire democracy rests. The importance of every institution of government being zealous in protecting the Constitutional Rights of every citizen and every attorney being a messenger will be repeated may be offensive to the current administration of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois but it is consistent with the oath that every attorney took when he was sworn in.
12) That as a citizen of the United States of America, fully intending to full exercise his Rights pursuant to Article 1 of the Illinois Constitution of 1970, and the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution the respondent demands that no document admitted in whole or part as evidence in these proceeds, no document referred to in whole or part in these proceedings, and/or no document garnered directly or indirectly in whole or part be altered or destroyed. The respondent at this point in time intends to when and if he files a Civil Rights lawsuit to request as part of discovery all of the aforesaid documents and demands that they be preserved in their original form.
Wherefore the respondent prays s follows:
1) That the order of October 2, 2013 be vacated and the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois be ordered to preserve not only the document that they sought to destroy, but all other documents that have directly or indirectly been encountered in these proceedings. (and in particular the documents referred to in paragraph 12)
2) That this panel having demonstrated bias by their attornment to the spoliation of documents in this case recuse itself instanter.
3) That these proceedings and any and all related be dismissed instanter.
It is respectfully suggested that another document that was part of the documents that the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois. www.lardc.org
. sought to be admitted and were admitted into evidence does not appear to be in the official record. That document is a Government Accounting Office report to Congress that was part of the Judge Connors deposition.
It should be noted that the Respondent is at all times a private citizen who happens to have a law degree. The attempt to limit his First Amendment Rights
is disingereous and a violation of 42 USCA 1983. First, the protected attorneys Adam Stern, Cynthia Farenga et al brought proceedings against the respondent to use Rule 137 to prevent him from exercising his First Amendment Rights of association and his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights to practice law and comply with Rule 137 and FRCP 11. They were thwarted when the Appellate Court of Illinois pointed out that respondent was not before the Circuit Court that sanctioned him, and therefore the Court lacked jurisdiction. The Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois and the hearing board improperly ignore this fact in their findings. Nothing has changed and there is not a scintilla of evidence that the respondent is anything other than a citizen who happens to have a law degree who is complaining to law enforcement and others concerning the ‘railroading’ of senior citizens and the failure of the Court to comply with statutory mandates.
It’s nearly impossible to figure out what and who is involved in Ken’s and my cases. They are too bizarre to imagine. Fist in response to the myriad of Ken’s dispositive motions declaring his innocence, sending more and more, even boxes and boxes of information to the IARDC protesting his innocence, they pass a rule saying “no dispolsibive motions”, even though standard court proceedings are to file a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, and then a Judgement on the pleadings or Summary Judgment motion. This is all standard in all courts of law, EXCEPT the IARDC.
I was told that I was “unlikely” to be able to use the affirmative defenses of First Amendment, Illinois Article X on free speech, 47 USC 230 which declares internet bloggers to have immunity for the statements they publish and then the commonlaw defamation defenses of: opinion, hyperbole, fair reporting, litigation reporting. Illinois also provides for immunity from prosecution for reporting on elder abuse, but that also seems to be ignored.
Well meaning, well intentioned people passed laws like the Illinois Elder Abuse act to prevent people from being sued when they report abuse. In this case, it was repeatedly reported to the authorities, and they ignored the please for assistance by the Sykes family, and then this blog was created to report it to the public.
The public has a right to know the truth. Mary Sykes is being exploited and abused. Her family is abused not only by CT, but by the authorities that stand by and do nothing, and the probate court that can’t simply tell the truth and dismiss the proceedings because there truly is no jurisdiction.
I have learned so much about how to be corrupt, how to fool the system, how to twist the truth while in court and watch the judge look the other way. But what I want to really learn is how to stop all of this. how to restore truth, integrity and justice into the Daley Center courtrooms. That indeed is the challenge.
It’s actually very difficult to figure out what is going on in the case, because the procedure is so bizarre, the options are so limited, and it just appears to be the same railroad developed for Mary Sykes in probate.
What gives? Something is clearly going on here, and I think if we just keep asking questions, the answers will come to us all, and they won’t be very pretty.