The answer: 1) When someone put a document in your file which is an email to one of your staff asking they “pull credit reports on two Illinois attorneys” (when you have no written authorization from them, and this is a violation of federal law), and
2) when every other attorney who is an office holder, a judge, in a judicial position, on a board, commission and the like, but for some reason you and your office and staff do not file the requisite annual “Report of Economic Interests” online with the Secretary of State in response to an Ethics Law revised in 2009!
Ken pointed this out to me today that the request to destroy an important document in a file and make sure neither you nor your staff is reporting annually on “Economic Interests” is just like taking the 5th amendment, right?
Their rule: If you break the law, do NOT tell anyone.
From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Oct 14, 2013 9:40 PM
Cc: JoAnne Denison , “lawrence@Lhyman.com” , Eric Holder , Harry Heckert , j ditkowsky , Tim NASGA , NASGA , probate sharks , , jim , “ACLU@ACLU.ORG”
Subject: Re: F2F–Radio segment on government attorneys violating law, shutting down ethical lawyers
please allow me to thank you for your support.
What always amazes me is the fact that the people picked to be the guardians of my virginity, ethics, et al almost always seem to be more deficient then me.
The failure to file financial disclosure statements is terrible as people who claim to be ethical should meet the test of Caesar’s wife. However, in recent weeks in addition to discovering a ‘smoking gun letter’ an [entity] moved before the Review Board to remove a document attached to [an agency] exhibit 3 from the record and destroy it. He falsely claimed that the document had gotten into the file by inadvertence.
If you believe that one – can I interest you in the Brooklyn Bridge – I can get you a great price. To have a document admitted into evidence the two attorneys for the [this agency] had to examine it. In addition the document has to be submitted to the attorneys for the respondent. Finally the triers of fact have to examine it. Assuming that none of the staff examined the document 7 people examined the document before it was admitted into evidence. (It is my memory that when exhibit 3 was admitted into evidence the offending document was not attached – that means that the record was tampered with! Tampering with evidence is clearly not ethical – in fact it has aspects of criminality.)
Ok – assume that all 7 of us saw the document and said nothing. The arrogance of asking for a document to be removed from the file and destroyed is quite unusual. In fact removing documents is ‘contempt’ and ‘destroying the documents’ is criminal. Yes, the Review panel granted the motion. Based upon the obvious bias and the obvious wrongfulness I moved to dismiss and also for the panel to recuse themselves based upon their patent bias. This did not happen! The panel however modified their order to place the offending document under ‘seal!’
We need that HONEST complete and comprehensive investigation of ‘elder cleansing.’