From Ken Ditkowsky – Judge blast prosecutor for talking to opposing party without benefit of counsel

Published today in the ISBA News letter:

first the link:


next quotes from Ken

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Nov 26, 2013 10:22 AM
To: “” , Jo Anne Denison
Subject: Fw: ISBA E-Clips – November 26, 2013

there is an article concerning the prosecution talking to the defendants outside the presence of his /her attorney  
In the Sykes related cases we have this going on all the time.   First, we have the ex-parte conversations that Ms. Black had with Gloria and Second her communication with JoAnne when she knew that I was representing JoAnne.    We also have Mr. Brodny reporting that he had ex-parte conversations with Ms. Black.  
One of the last orders entered by the Review panel reports an ex-parte conversation between the panel and a staff attorney for the IARDC.    The reports that he had informed the panel ex-parte that he had no objection to a particular motion.  
I relate this because of the seriousness with which the court viewed the communication.     I do not know what the communication was – it may have been:  “good morning!”    As the IARDC staff and Mr. Larkin are the keeps of the legal conscience this appears to be another saga of the rules being bended for the rule keepers at the expenses of the rest of us.
Ken Ditkowsky

Awaiting the Decision of the IARDC on SCOI’s most recent attempt to control the situation

From Ken Ditkowsky:

The recent Supreme Court of Illinois case has placed the IARDC between a rock and a hard place.  The words:

before professional discipline may be imposed under Supreme Court Rule 770, the Administrator must demonstrate that the attorney violated the Rules of Professional Conduct. To the extent that any of our prior cases suggest that an attorney may be subjected to professional discipline for conduct that is not prohibited by the Rules of Professional Conduct or defined as misconduct therein, we hereby reject such a suggestion. As a matter of due process, an attorney who is charged with misconduct and faces potential discipline must be given adequate notice of the charges, including the rule or rules he is accused of violating. Personal misconduct that falls outside the scope of the Rules of Professional Conduct may be the basis for civil liability or other adverse consequences, but will not result in professional discipline.
In re Karavidas, 2013 IL 115767
 tell the IARDC in no uncertain terms that the First Amendment assaults on JoAnne and myself are totally improper.     Read in context of all that is going on it is also clear that if Larkin is going to survive he is going to have to do a bit of CYA.   Thus, as our goal is to get Mary Sykes free – and hopefully for the holidays he may need a bit of guidance.   
Miriam Solo is a prime target!    She, Adam Stern, and Cynthia Farenga are made to order!    Each has made enough statements to convict them of – you name it!    Schmiedel and his associates are guilty of perversion of the English language and single handed making the obvious phrases obscure.     What these people have done to Gloria is obscene and they should pay.  Therefore, the IARDC got my Himmel charges against them post haste.  
All I am asking and all that Larkin has to do is to call on the USA and/or the States attorney to do an HONEST complete and comprehensive investigation!    Pure and Simple!    If he does it loud and clear all the dirty deeds of his staff and miscreants comes to the surface and CYA sweeps into the hero’s box!
If you remember in the cop shows the cop turns to the bad guys and says:  “there is deal for the first one who talks!”   Well little friends – this time there is a deal for the first one who comes forth with the truth!!!      I do not expect the staff members to come forth – they are afraid of Larkin!   Larkin however is not one to go down with the ship!   Ergo!!
Of course if no one come forth – the excerta will pile up in bigger and bigger piles and it will bury the whole bunch.   Unfortunately, the miscreants will all get the deals and when the stench clears it will look like Larkin and his staff were the instigators of all the bad things in this world and sued their influence on Solo, Stern, Farenga, Schmiedel etc to ******.     But for **** our miscreants would have been as pure as the un -driven snow!   
Gloria’s petition and affidavit are an incentive to one or more of the staff of the IARDC to come forward and ring the bell!    Sorry – I had a uncontrollable impulse when she handed me a big rock in front of that large plate glass window!! 

Incidentially – have you ever seen what happens when you drive a golf ball through a window!   It neat!   First there is a small round hole and then *****!!!!
As Larkin is the smartest of the bunch – my money is on him to ride the ‘white’ steed!
Ken Ditkowsky

Yes, it has been 15 days and counting since the Karavidas decision.  It has been months since the Virginia State Bar decision where the Virginia bar told the VBS they should not regulate an attorney’s blog publishing the cases he won (In re Hunter) and it has been more than half a century since the case of In re Sawyer wherein the Hawaiian Bar association was firmly told by SCOTUS that a lawyer can criticicize a court, a decision and a law, rule or statute and that was HER constitutional  right.

So now we wait to see if another CYA will come along.

In response to complaints Ken has filed against JL and his staff of CYA minions, apparently the IARDC has appointed “special counsel” for those persons.  So if you have a complaint against the IARDC for NOT processing your valid complaint against an attorney, trashing it on ridiculous grounds (Wyman, Sykes, Gore), keep on filing them and send them to the Special Counsel, Mr. David Mann who may not have been told the entire story by JL:

His letter is as follows and please write him.

of the
David S. Mann
Special Counsel
November 19,2013
Mr. Kenneth Karl Ditkowsky
Ditkowsky & Contorer
5940 West Touhy Avenue
Suite 230
Niles, Illinois 60714-4604

131 S. Dearborn St., Ste. 3000
Chicago, IL 60603-5583
Telephone: (312) 715-5707
Re: Jerome E. Larkin
in relation to
Kenneth Karl Ditkowsky
No. 2013 IN 05181

Dear Mr. Ditkowsky:
The Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (“ARDC”) has received your
communication regarding Jerome E. Larkin.
I am one of the independent lawyers the ARDC Commissioners appointed to review complaints
and allegations against attorneys associated with the ARDC. Your communication was referred to me
because Mr. Larkin is the Administrator of the ARDC.
I will ask Mr. Larkin to submit a response to the matters you have raised. A copy of his response
may be sent to you for your comments. I will then determine whether further investigation is required.
If I need additional information from you, I will contact you and, of course, will advise you of
any decision in the matter. Please notify me of any changes in your address or telephone number.
Very truly yours,
David S. Mann
ARDC Special Counsel

New Case from SCOI – In re Karavidas explains the constraints of the IARDC

This week the Ill. Supreme Court clearly has told the IARDC it does not have unlimited jurisdiction over all complaints filed with it.  In the past, the IARDC has filed weak complaints, groundless complaints, conjecture and hearsay against many, many attorneys and ignored complaints from the likes of Sykes, Gore, Taylor, Bedin, etc–all cases lacking jurisdiction and/or funds from inventories and accountings.

What the IARDC was formed to do was ferret out the type of corruption found in Greylord, and that should be their continuing mission–stopping and educating attorneys they cannot engage in greed, favoritism, bribes, cronnyism, etc.

Somewhere, they went off track chasing the easy stuff–ambulance chasers (those contacting a client before the client contacts the attorney first), misleading ads that don’t say “advertising” on the envelope, etc.–violations which are laid out in the Code of Ethics for Attorneys.

Then they discipline Ken Ditkowsky for merely conducting a Rule 11 investigation into whether he will represent a potential client–Mary G Sykes, and for publishing his numerous faxes, emails and letters to the authorities asking for an investigation in that case–one clearly without jurisdiction.

They come after me for blogging–all the while admitting my blog consists of non commercial political speech–something clearly prohibited under the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution and Articles of the Illinois Constitution.  They say I can’t use SLAPP (an expedited hearing for instances in which political speech is involved but a plaintiff is trying to use the courts wrongfully to silence political speech by claiming defamation), and I now believe the reason they didn’t go there is because they don’t have to — the Karavidas decision makes this clear.

Perhaps the Ill. Supreme Court has made it clear.  For the IARDC to discipline THE CONDUCT MUST BE SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITED BY THE CODE OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT and the charges must be specific so as to avoid claims that due process was violated.

The ARDC has none of that against myself or Ken, but to date continues to prosecute and persecute us.  In addition, they have clearly copied hundreds of pages of my copyrighted blog–another shameful action by the IARDC.

Finally, the agency has no transparency or accountability like other state agencies.  They claim they are a private enterprise only subject to the Ill. Supreme Ct., but their lack of transparency and accountability like other state agencies wears thin on the public and their confidence when grievances against “favored” attorneys are ignored (lack of jurisdiction, assets falling off of inventories with impunity, and other actions), while the IARDC goes after private emails of Ken Ditkowsky and my blog.

My blog is not me and I am not my blog.  You, the readers ask me to publish about certain things you see in the courtroom and I do and comment on them.  I ask for backup with transcripts and pleadings before I publish.

Nonetheless, that is my constitutional right.  I have an opinion, you have an opinion and those opinions are put on this blog, in case someone wants to read them.  Similarly, I gather facts, case law, statutory law and publish that too.  The IARDC acts like it is shocked and claim “it must not be true” when miscreant judges and attys apparently are not following the law and they claim my facts and opinions are wrong, (and maybe they are sometimes), but I still have the right to gather them and publish them where I find them and where others find them.

These attorneys and judges are public figures and so I should be granted wide berth to write about them, let others write about them, criticize them, praise them, whatever, and the IARDC should not be regulating blogs.  As Ken says, THEY WERE NOT GRANTED THAT AUTHORITY.  They have no jurisdiction.

So along comes the Karavidas case and what does that case say?  The same thing, here is the case:

here are some quotes from Ken;

Key statements from Karvidas
In the context of a disciplinary proceeding where an attorney-client relationship is involved, we use the term “conversion” as a term of art and focus on the attorney’s conduct with respect to the property or funds of the client or third party, not on the circumstances that would be necessary to give rise to a claim in tort by the rightful owner. See In re Rosin, 156 Ill.2d 202, 206, 189 Ill.Dec. 400, 620 N.E.2d 368 (1993) (defining conversion in the context of a disciplinary proceeding as “any unauthorized act, which deprives a man of his property permanently or for an indefinite time,” where the property at issue was the client’s share of proceeds of a settlement (internal quotation marks omitted)). Thus, when an attorney is acting as an attorney, he may be found to have converted funds that are held in a trust account holding funds owed to numerous clients, even though his misconduct does not fit the common law definition of conversion.
In re Karavidas, 2013 IL 115767
In sum, we hold that professional discipline may be imposed only upon a showing by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent attorney has violated one or more of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Mere bad behavior that does not violate one of the Rules is insufficient.
In re Karavidas, 2013 IL 115767
We, therefore, agree with the Review Board that respondent’s conduct, because he was not acting as an attorney and he was not involved in the judicial process at the time of the breach, did not undermine the administration of justice. While an attorney’s breach of fiduciary duty owed to a nonclient could constitute an act that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, this did not occur in this case. Further, if an attorney is to be disciplined for such conduct, the Administrator must, as a matter of due process, plead and prove that the breach of fiduciary duty had a prejudicial effect on the administration of justice. To the extent that our earlier decisions state or imply otherwise, they are hereby overruled.
In re Karavidas, 2013 IL 115767
before professional discipline may be imposed under Supreme Court Rule 770, the Administrator must demonstrate that the attorney violated the Rules of Professional Conduct. To the extent that any of our prior cases suggest that an attorney may be subjected to professional discipline for conduct that is not prohibited by the Rules of Professional Conduct or defined as misconduct therein, we hereby reject such a suggestion. As a matter of due process, an attorney who is charged with misconduct and faces potential discipline must be given adequate notice of the charges, including the rule or rules he is accused of violating. Personal misconduct that falls outside the scope of the Rules of Professional Conduct may be the basis for civil liability or other adverse consequences, but will not result in professional discipline.
In re Karavidas, 2013 IL 115767
The effect of these statements is to focus Mr. Larkin and the IARDC upon the fact that each of the miscreants and each member of the staff of the IARDC – including Mr. Larkin has a duty to exercise professionalism and not go on fishing expeditions that are designed to discourage or assault the First Amendment or deny seniors of their liberty and property.    In particular – in writing her ‘smoking gun’ letter Ms. Farenga was fully aware that the IARDC had no authority to stop either JoAnne Denison or myself from exercising our First Amendment Rights.   Similarly staff attorney and attorney for Mr. Larkin was also aware when he brought the disciplinary proceeding that the IARDC had no authority (and no jurisdiction) to attempt to impede, discourage, or interfere with my communication with NASGA, Probate Sharks, Attorney General Holder etc.
At all times relevant Farenga was acting in her professional capacity of an attorney and guardian ad litem.   IT IS CERTAINLY UNETHICAL FOR AN ATTORNEY TO IN THE COURSE OF HIS/HER ENGAGEMENT TO VIOLATE 42 USCA 1983!     Why did Mr. Larkin not prosecute Ms. Farenga and/or Ms. Black?
Similar situations exist in relation to the actions of Mr. Larkin, the staff attorneys of the IARDC and Mr. Schmiedel, Mr. Stern and the other miscreants!    The isolation and continued elder abuse of Mary Sykes similarly is unprofessional, incurs as part of the Court proceedings and it also remains uninvestigated and unpunished.   Indeed, it is now Thanksgiving 2013 and Mary has been kept prisoner for four years!    Why has Mr. Larkin the IARDC not acted on Citizen complaints (and in particular the complaints filed by Gloria Sykes) as to this assault on the Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments by attorney miscreants acting in violation of 42 USCA 1983?   Why has staff attorney’s been given a pass as to unprofessional conduct that they have demonstrated.  (In particular the letter claiming that Stern was Gloria’s GAL which 17 days later became a typo!).
Anyhow – my Petition to dismiss is being filed as this e-mail is being sent.   I drafted a Petition for you the mirrors mine.   It should also be filed.   It is my hope that with no more scapegoats Mr. Larkin and the IARDC will request law enforcement including the States Attorney and the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois to do an HONEST complete and comprehensive investigation of this entire Elder Cleansing scandal.   (This is a National fiasco of epic proportions!    The Income taxes generated from these breaches of Fiduciary relationships is incredible.)  [Carolyn T at this point in relation to the gold coins removed from the safety deposit box and not inventoried owes Income taxes at 30%, a Fraud penalty of 50% and 25% per year in interest.   I am assuming that she did not disclose on her 2009 United States Income tax the unauthorized removal of Gloria Sykes and Mary Sykes’ gold coins from their safety deposit box. – as a side, I notice that once again Gloria’s attempts to obtain the signature cards and other information as to her safety deposit box have been thwarted!   I am hoping that Mr. HOlder will send the IRS to secure these records!    The breach of fiduciary relationship is a taxable event!]
Ken Ditkowsky

Answers to FOIA request for salaries and to Ethics Reporting

Today was a twofer.  I received back the following letter responses to my request for FOIA on salaries for all attys, managers and supervisors at the IARDC and was told it was not  a “public body” or “any legislative, executive, administrative, or advisory bodies of the State.”

So no FOIA for the IARDC.  They even cited a case;

See the letter below:


The next letter I wrote to Jesse White, Secretary of State asking that he instruct the IARDC to do their ethics reporting.

You can see the letter below:

He responded it was not his job to do this, that it is the responsibility of the branch, agency, authority or board of state government to determine who has to file first, so I guess it’s back to the IARDC counsel to make that determination first and enfoce the state law.  I will do another fax to the IARDC.

I also received a list of ARDC defense attorneys and I will email each of them and see if any of them has any interest in handling my case and on what terms and conditions.

So many interesting things to do this week, besides my regular research to root out troubles and issues with attys and judges.



FOIA Request to the IARDC – 5 days to answer

Please see below, under the Illinios FOIA, the respondent has 5 days to obtain and transmit the information.

Let’s see what happens.


A copy of the FOIA act is here:

A copy of the public policy of the act is below.  There is Illinois case law that says no person is to take any action in contravention to the public policies the Illinois state legislature has set forth or such actions are ineffective and may not be enforced.

    (5 ILCS 140/1) (from Ch. 116, par. 201)
    Sec. 1. Pursuant to the fundamental philosophy of the American constitutional form of government, it is declared to be the public policy of the State of Illinois that all persons are entitled to full and complete information regarding the affairs of government and the official acts and policies of those who represent them as public officials and public employees consistent with the terms of this Act. Such access is necessary to enable the people to fulfill their duties of discussing public issues fully and freely, making informed political judgments and monitoring government to ensure that it is being conducted in the public interest.
    The General Assembly hereby declares that it is the public policy of the State of Illinois that access by all persons to public records promotes the transparency and accountability of public bodies at all levels of government. It is a fundamental obligation of government to operate openly and provide public records as expediently and efficiently as possible in compliance with this Act.
     This Act is not intended to cause an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, nor to allow the requests of a commercial enterprise to unduly burden public resources, or to disrupt the duly-undertaken work of any public body independent of the fulfillment of any of the fore-mentioned rights of the people to access to information.
    Restraints on access to information, to the extent permitted by this Act, are limited exceptions to the principle that the people of this State have a right to full disclosure of information relating to the decisions, policies, procedures, rules, standards, and other aspects of government activity that affect the conduct of government and the lives of any or all of the people. The provisions of this Act shall be construed in accordance with this principle. This Act shall be construed to require disclosure of requested information as expediently and efficiently as possible and adherence to the deadlines established in this Act.
    The General Assembly recognizes that this Act imposes fiscal obligations on public bodies to provide adequate staff and equipment to comply with its requirements. The General Assembly declares that providing records in compliance with the requirements of this Act is a primary duty of public bodies to the people of this State, and this Act should be construed to this end, fiscal obligations notwithstanding.
    The General Assembly further recognizes that technology may advance at a rate that outpaces its ability to address those advances legislatively. To the extent that this Act may not expressly apply to those technological advances, this Act should nonetheless be interpreted to further the declared policy of this Act that public records shall be made available upon request except when denial of access furthers the public policy underlying a specific exemption.
    This Act shall be the exclusive State statute on freedom of information, except to the extent that other State statutes might create additional restrictions on disclosure of information or other laws in Illinois might create additional obligations for disclosure of information to the public.
(Source: P.A. 96-542, eff. 1-1-10.)

    (5 ILCS 140/1.1) (from Ch. 116, par. 201.1)
    Sec. 1.1. This Act may be cited as the Freedom of Information Act.
(Source: P.A. 86-1475.)
    (5 ILCS 140/1.2)
    Sec. 1.2. Presumption. All records in the custody or possession of a public body are presumed to be open to inspection or copying. Any public body that asserts that a record is exempt from disclosure has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that it is exempt.
(Source: P.A. 96-542, eff. 1-1-10.)
   (5 ILCS 140/2.10)
    Sec. 2.10. Payrolls. Certified payroll records submitted to a public body under Section 5(a)(2) of the Prevailing Wage Act are public records subject to inspection and copying in accordance with the provisions of this Act; except that contractors' employees' addresses, telephone numbers, and social security numbers must be redacted by the public body prior to disclosure.
(Source: P.A. 96-542, eff. 1-1-10.)
(NOTE: all other Illinois state employee payroll can be found at various places on the internet–Gov. Quinn has his publish and the Controller does too).
   (d) Each public body shall, promptly, either comply with or deny a request for public records within 5 business days after its receipt of the request, unless the time for response is properly extended under subsection (e) of this Section. Denial shall be in writing as provided in Section 9 of this Act. Failure to comply with a written request, extend the time for response, or deny a request within 5 business days after its receipt shall be considered a denial of the request. A public body that fails to respond to a request within the requisite periods in this Section but thereafter provides the requester with copies of the requested public records may not impose a fee for such copies. A public body that fails to respond to a request received may not treat the request as unduly burdensome under subsection (g).
    (e) The time for response under this Section may be extended by the public body for not more than 5 business days from the original due date for any of the following reasons:
        (i) the requested records are stored in whole or in

part at other locations than the office having charge of the requested records;
        (ii) the request requires the collection of a
substantial number of specified records;
        (iii) the request is couched in categorical terms and
requires an extensive search for the records responsive to it;
        (iv) the requested records have not been located in
the course of routine search and additional efforts are being made to locate them;
        (v) the requested records require examination and
evaluation by personnel having the necessary competence and discretion to determine if they are exempt from disclosure under Section 7 of this Act or should be revealed only with appropriate deletions;
        (vi) the request for records cannot be complied with
by the public body within the time limits prescribed by paragraph (c) of this Section without unduly burdening or interfering with the operations of the public body;
        (vii) there is a need for consultation, which shall
be conducted with all practicable speed, with another public body or among two or more components of a public body having a substantial interest in the determination or in the subject matter of the request.
    The person making a request and the public body may agree in writing to extend the time for compliance for a period to be determined by the parties. If the requester and the public body agree to extend the period for compliance, a failure by the public body to comply with any previous deadlines shall not be treated as a denial of the request for the records.
    (f) When additional time is required for any of the above reasons, the public body shall, within 5 business days after receipt of the request, notify the person making the request of the reasons for the extension and the date by which the response will be forthcoming. Failure to respond within the time permitted for extension shall be considered a denial of the request. A public body that fails to respond to a request within the time permitted for extension but thereafter provides the requester with copies of the requested public records may not impose a fee for those copies. A public body that requests an extension and subsequently fails to respond to the request may not treat the request as unduly burdensome under subsection (g).
    (g) Requests calling for all records falling within a category shall be complied with unless compliance with the request would be unduly burdensome for the complying public body and there is no way to narrow the request and the burden on the public body outweighs the public interest in the information. Before invoking this exemption, the public body shall extend to the person making the request an opportunity to confer with it in an attempt to reduce the request to manageable proportions. If any body responds to a categorical request by stating that compliance would unduly burden its operation and the conditions described above are met, it shall do so in writing, specifying the reasons why it would be unduly burdensome and the extent to which compliance will so burden the operations of the public body. Such a response shall be treated as a denial of the request for information.

TO PC Denison & Assocs
COMPANY Denison & Assocs, PC
FAXNUMBER 13123768842
FROM Denison & Assocs, PC
DATE 2013-11-15 15:50:59 GMT
RE FOIA request for salary records
To the Keeper of Records/Human Resources/CFO;
To whom it may concern;
In accordance with the Illinois FOIA statute 5 ILCS sec.
140/1 et.seq. we are respectfully requesting the following
l)for all attorneys, supervisors, managers:
2) please provide name, job title and annual salary,
3) for the years 2000 to 2013 where the information is
from January 2013 to October 31, 2013.
This information will not be sold and is for non
commercial purposes for a non commercial b1og.
Your prompt assistance is greatly appreciated. You may
fax the information to 312 376 8842, email me at
“”, or place the information in the
mail to “Denison & Assocs, PC; 1512 N Fremont st, #202,
Chicago, IL 60642.”
Joanne Denison

A fax to Jesse White for Transparency and Accountability in Illinois Government

Please write, fax or call Mr. Jesse White and ask him to ensure compliance in the IARDC.  What is going on there is my question.

TO Jesse White
COMPANY Ill. Sec. of State

312 759 3610 fax chicago

217 782 1407 fax springfield
FROM Denison & Assocs, PC
DATE 2013-11-15 05:10:09 GMT
RE IARDC and failure to file Ethics Reporting
Dear Mr. White;
It has come to my attention that the attorneys, managers
and supervisors of the Ill. Atty. Registration and
Disciplinary Commn. have somehow failed to file annual
ethics disclosures regarding their fianancia1 affairs, and
this has apparently created many problems in that agency.
I have not found their disclosures posted on any state
agency website, and we have called and they claim they are
exempt and do not file.
Therefore, I am requesting on an ASAP basis that you
immediat1y issue certified letters to each of the
attorneys, managers and supervisors that they file these
reports for each year they have worked at the IARDC or
take appropriate steps as the I11inos Legislature has
A copy of the relevant articles of legislation is attached
Your prompt assitance is greatly appreciated by both the
citizens of the State of Illinois and the attorneys
licensed in the State of Illinois and practicing here.
Very Truly Yours,
JoAnne M Dension
Patent atty
1512 N Fremont st, #202
Chicago, IL 60642
efax 312 376 8842
All candidates for or holders of state offices and all
members of a Commission or Board created by this Constitution
shall file a verified statement of their economic interests,
as provided by law. The General Assembly by law may impose a
similar requirement upon candidates for, or holders of,
otlices in units of local government and school districts.
Statements shall be filed annually with the Secretary of
State and shall be available for inspection by the public.
The General Assembly by law shall prescribe a reasonable time
for filing the statement. Failure to file a statement within
the time prescribed shall result in ineligibility for, or
forfeiture of, otlice. This Section shall not be construed as
limiting the authority of any branch of government to
establish and enforce ethical standards for that branch.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)
ARTICLE VI – Judiciary
General administrative and supervisory authority over all
courts is vested in the Supreme Court and shall be exercised
by the Chief Justice in accordance with its rules. The
Supreme Court shall appoint an administrative director and
statT, who shall serve at its pleasure, to assist the Chief
Justice in his duties.
From 5 ILCS 420:
S 4A-101. Persons required to file. The following persons shall file verified written
statements of economic interests, as provided in this Article:
(a) Members of the General Assembly and candidates for nomination or election
to the General Assembly.
(b) Persons holding an eleded office in the Executive Branch of this State,
and candidates for nomination or election to these offices.
(c) Members of a Commission or Board created by the Illinois Constitution,
and candidates for nomination or election to such Commission or Board.
(d) Persons whose appointment to office is subject to confirmation by the Senate
and persons appointed by the Governor to any other position on a board or
commission described in subsection (a) of Section 15 of the Gubernatorial
Boards and Commissions Act.
(e) Holders of, and candidates for nomination or election to, the office of judge
or associate judge of the Circuit Court and the office of judge of the Appellate or
Supreme Court.
(f) Persons who are employed by any branch, agency, authority or board of
the government of this State, including but not limited to, the Illinois State Toll
Highway Authority, the Illinois Housing Development Authority, the Illinois Community
College Board, and institutions under the jurisdiction of the Board of
Trustees of the University of Illinois, Board of Trustees of Southern Illinois University,
Board of Trustees of Chicago State University, Board of Trustees of Eastern
Illinois University, Board of Trustees of Governor’ 5 State University, Board
of Trustees of Illinois State University, Board of Trustees of Northeastern Illinois
University, Board of Trustees of Northern Illinois University, Board of Trustees
of Western Illinois University, or Board of Trustees of the Illinois Mathematics
and Science Academy, and are compensated for services as employees and
not as independent contractors a nd who:
(1) are, or function as, the head of a department, commission, board,
division, bureau, authority or other administrative unit within the government
of this State, or who exercise similar authority within the government
of this State;
(2) havedirsct supervisory authority over; or direct responsibility for the
formulation,’ n8’gotiation, issuance or ‘execution”of contracts’ 9’ntered”rnto
by the Stllteinthe ahibuntof$5,OOOOt hiore;
(3) have’ ‘a’uthority for the Tss’uarice oi ‘piom’ulgaUO’n of rul’es a’n’d regu~
18ti.Qr”ls”wit,hill a~a~ ,under th~ a,u.thority of. th,13 $~b;!:;
(4) have authority.for the approval of professional..licensas.;
(5) have responsibility with respect to the financial inspection of regulated
nongovernmental entities;
(6) adjudicate, arbitrate,or decide any judicial or administrative proceeding,
or review the adjudication; arbitration or decision of any judicial
or administrative proceeding within the authantyof the State; or
(7) have supervisory tespbnsibilityfat 20 aihiore ehipIOye,,, of the
(8) negotiate, assign, authorize, or grant naming rights or sponsorship
rights regarding any property or asset of the State, whether real, personal,
tangible, or intangible.
(g) Persons who are elected to office in a unit of local government, and candidates
for nomination or election to that office, including regional superintendents
of school districts,
(h) Persons appointed to the governing board of a unit of local government,
or of a special district, and persons appointed to a zoning board, or zoning board
of appeals, or to a regional, county, or municipal plan commission, or to a board
of review of any county, and persons appointed to the Board of the Metropolitan
Pier and Exposition Authority and any Trustee appointed under Section 22 of
the Metropolitan Pier and Exposition Authority Act, and persons appointed to a
board or commission of a unit of local government who have authority to authorize
the expenditure of public funds. This subsection does not apply to members
of boards or commissions who function in an advisory capacity.
(i) Persons who are employed by a unit of local government and are compensated
for services as employees and not as independent contractors and
(1) are, or function as, the head of a department, division, bureau, authority
or other administrative unit within the unit of local government, or
who exercise similar authority within the unit of local government;
(2) have direct supervisory authority over, or direct responsibility for the
formulation, negotiation, issuance or execution of contracts entered into
by the unit of local government in the amount of $1,000 or greater;
(3)..have.authority to permits by the unit of local
government; this item does not include employees who function in a ministerial
(4) adjudicate, arbitrate, or decide any judicial or administrative proceeding,
or review the adjudication, arbitration or decision of any judicial
or administrative proceeding within the authority of the unit of local government;
(5) have authority to issue or promulgate rules and regulations within
areas under the authority of the unit of local government; or
(€i) hfjVB: ::;,l,Jperyisory responsibility for 20 or more employees of the unit
of Joco.lgoY<>rnment.
U) Persons on the Board of Trustees of the Illinois Mathematics and Science
(k) Persons employed by a school district in positions that require that person
to hold an administrative or a chief school business official endorsement.
(I) Special government agents. A “special government agent” is a person who
is directed, retained, designated, appointed, or employed, with or without compensation,
by or on behalf of a statewide executive branch constitutional officer
to make an ex parte communication under Section 5-50 of the State Officials
and Employees Ethics Act or Section 5-165 of the Illinois Administrative Procedure
(m) Members of the board of commissioners of any fiood prevention
(n) Members of the board of any retirement system or investment board established
under the Illinois Pension Code, if not required to file under any other
provision of this Section.
(0) Members of the board of any pension fund established under the Illinois
Pension Code, if not required to file under any other provision of this Section.
This Section shall not be construed to prevent any unit of local government from
enacting financial disclosure requirements that require more information than required
by the Act.
(Amended by Public Act 88-187, eff. Jan.1, 1994; Public Act 88-511, eff. Jan.1, 1994; Public Act
88-605, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Public Act 91-622, eff. Aug. 19, 1999; Public Act 93-617, eff. Dec. 9,
2003; Public Act 93-816, eff. July 27, 2004; Public Act 95-719, eff. May 21, 2008; Public Act 96-
6, eff. April 3, 2009; Public Act 96-543, eff. Aug. 17, 2009

Some political humor….

Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of Congress; but then I repeat myself. -Mark Twain  
You can lead a man to Congress, but you can’t make him think.  -Milton Berle
The only difference between death and taxes is that death doesn’t get worse every time Congress meets. -Will Rogers  
I don’t mind what Congress does, as long as they don’t do it in the streets and frighten the horses. -Victor Hugo
I have wondered at times what the Ten Commandments would have looked like if Moses had run them through the US Congress. -Ronald Reagan
Congress is so strange. A man gets up to speak and says nothing. Nobody listens – and then everybody disagrees. -Boris Marshalov
In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress. -John Adams
They say that women talk too much. If you have worked in Congress, you know that the filibuster was invented by men. -Clare Boothe Luce
Ancient Rome declined because it had a Senate; now what’s going to happen to us with both a Senate and a House? -Will Rogers
Congress – an old folks home for cripples and the mentally impaired. – Mark Twain

Destruction of photos–a Supreme Ct issue to be decided shortly

Still Active Discussions (1)
 From the FOIA group on Linked In:

Cell phone searches require warrant, says Supreme Court: the capacity of modern cell phones is “equivalent to those of computers”

Started by Sharon Polsky, MAPP

The same issue is currently before the The US Supreme Court. Will be decided sometime before July 2014. By Peter Scheer


Of course, many of you will recall that after Gloria, Scott, Kathie and I went to Sunrise of Naperville and took video/photos of Mary without hearing aides, without her partial, dirty teeth and swollen gums, unkempt hair and nails–which never happened under Gloria’s tutelage–the nice police officer from Naperville actually ran into the parking lot and asked me to destroy my pics and videos of her.  I have complained to the Napervilee police–without response.  The ACLU website clearly says the police ARE NOT EVEN SUPPOSED TO ASK for you to delete pictures, but when it’s all connected into probate and the nursing home biz, apparently anything goes.

I complained to the ARDC and nothing has been done, tho it looks like this happened only AFTER the nursing home talked to Atty Adam Stern.

I’m betting SCOTUS tells police officers hands off the cell phones and get a warrant.

What this officer say was a veiled threat, you either delete the photos or I take your phone into custody.  What?  Protective custody like the Nelson 7th circuit painting that ended up with a gash in it regardless?

I’m just saying


If you interfere with constitutional rights under 42 USC 1983, beware of this

From Ken Ditkowsky today, more words of wisdom:

Supervisor liability under § 1983 “can be shown in one or more of the following ways: (1) actual direct participation in the constitutional violation, (2) failure to remedy a wrong after being informed through a report or appeal, (3) creation of a policy or custom that sanctioned conduct amounting to a constitutional violation, or allowing such a policy or custom to continue, (4) grossly negligent supervision of subordinates who committed a violation, or (5) failure to act on information indicating that unconstitutional acts were occurring.” Hernandez, 341 F.3d at 145; see also Colon v. Coughlin, 58 F.3d 865, 873 (2d Cir.1995).    Richardson v. Goord, 347 F.3d 431, 435 (2d Cir. 2003)

In the cases against JoAnne and me, not only is Larkin the technical plaintiff but we have written to him Himmel reports concerning the misconduct.    The decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States qualify as reports.  [ It is absolutely amazing that anyone would risk anything…….. for the low life elder cleansers. ]
Ken Ditkowsky

From Ken Ditkowsky — more on 42 USC 1983 and basic due process rights

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Nov 13, 2013 3:40 PM
To: JoAnne M Denison
Cc: Eric Holder , Cook County States Attorney , Cook Sheriff , “” <>, “” , SUNTIMES , “” , “” , “” , “” , probate sharks , Harry Heckert , j ditkowsky , Bill , “” , “ACLU@ACLU.ORG” , “” , “”
Subject: Re: 1983 claims and the ARDC

It is now very clear that in a 42 USCA 1983 action, because of the Supreme Court of United States Decisions in Alvarez, Brown, et al  we can get beyond the Motion to Dismiss in any action we bring against Mr. Larkin and his staff (and boards) for knowingly violating our civil rights and and those of the victims of elder cleansing.   It is also clear that with my calling for an HONEST complete and comprehensive investigation of the miscreants who are engaged in the cottage industry being ignored a jury is not going to look very favorably at the ‘policeman’ who watches liberty raped!
When I had lunch with an attorney friend recently, I asked him whether he believed that now that Larkin is aware that he is engaged in conduct that patently violates 42 USCA 1983 and deprives attorneys of their civil rights why he (Larkin) does not do a little ‘CYA.’   I will not tell you the answer (even though it was benign).  It leaves me speechless that an intelligent attorney would allow his staff to mislead panels by torturing cases – the statements made concerning Sawyer if made by you or me are so misleading that in my opinion they cross the border and are direct contempt.  Sawyer is not ‘good’ decision as far as these assault the First Amendment cases.
Why the protection of Schmiedel, Stern, Farenga, Solo et al?   Why hide the 60K plus Federal Tax lien assessed against Stern, or Farenga’s smoking gun letters.
Folks – elder cleansing as practiced today does not involve boarding up senior citizens and shipping them off to massive liquidation centers – it is much more subtle.   It involves misleading judges, court orders, and actions under color of statute.    Senior citizens are fleeced of hundreds of thousands of dollars and when the last dollar is removed (whether by mining the teeth of gold, or pure theft) the senior is bundled off to a nursing home where he/she is warehoused until the drugs kill him/her off!
I will never in a million years never forget the response I got from Senator Durbin!   I wrote him, and got back a copy of a speech he delivered on social security.   Who cares about social security payments when they are going to enrich a miscreant and the senior is fighting off government purchased drugs that are being used to keep him calm so that all he does is defecate, sleep and eat!   Omicare just paid 147 million dollar fine for it help to the effort of elder cleansing!   I heard Friday another member of the nursing home cabal was arrested and is co-operating with the Fed.  Maybe Senator Durbin can send Mr. SN a copy of his social security speech!
Ken Ditkowsky

From Joanne;

It further amazes me that other attorneys can simply “walk on by” this hard evidence that there is seriously something afoul found in many courtrooms and say nothing and do nothing because they fear the ARDC will say they are lying, and subsequently conduct a full McCarthy era style cleansing of the uncorruptible ones–all because the First Amendment was not given the full length and breadth that it deserved.

Please, continue to write, fax or call the ARDC and demand they do their ethics reporting.  Demand that the Secretary of State issue a letter to all attorneys and managers and supervisors at the ARDC and enforce the laws that our Illinois state legislature has taken care to enact–that the ARDC MUST report or it must empty out its offices in favor of those honest enough to do so.

The Illinois Secretary of State is Mr. Jesse White and you can contact him at:

fax number chicago:

Fax number springfield:

312 814 2262 Jesse White’s secretary had the information but did not provide me with an email address

sometime he is in chicago, sometimes in springfield.

312 759 3610 fax chicago

217 782 1407 fax springfield

Mr. White’s addresses for snail mail:

800-252-8980 (toll free in Illinois)
213 State Capitol
Springfield, IL 62756
217-785-3000 (outside Illinois)

134 N La Salle St # 1814
(312) 346-0121

From Ken Ditkowsky – what is a 42 USC sec 1983 claim?

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Nov 13, 2013 2:54 PM
To: “” , Tim NASGA , “” , probate sharks , Harry Heckert , j ditkowsky , “” , “” , “”
Subject: 1983 claim

“A civil conspiracy claim may also serve as a source of § 1983 liability provided the plaintiff can show that “he was deprived of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States and that the deprivation was caused by a person acting under color of state law.” Kelley v. Myler, 149 F.3d 641, 648 (7th Cir.1998). The conspiracy itself is not an independent basis of § 1983 liability; there must be an underlying constitutional injury or the attendant conspiracy claim necessarily fails. See Hill v. City of Chicago, No. 06 C 6772, 2009 WL 174994, at *9 (N.D.Ill. Jan. 26, 2009). “To be liable as a conspirator [a defendant] must be a voluntary participant in a common venture … [and] it is enough if [the defendant] understand[s] the general objectives of the scheme, accept[s] them, and agree[s], either explicitly or implicitly, to do [his] part to further them.” Jones v. City of Chicago, 856 F.2d 985, 992 (7th Cir.1988).
*754 910 ” Finally, in some circumstances, a state actor’s failure to intervene in a violation of an another’s constitutional rights can serve as a basis for § 1983 liability. See Harper v. Albert, 400 F.3d 1052, 1064 (7th Cir.2005) (“In order for there to be a failure to intervene, it logically follows that there must exist an underlying constitutional violation.”). A plaintiff may state a claim for failure to intervene by showing that “any constitutional violation has been committed by a law enforcement official; and the [defendant] had a realistic opportunity to intervene to prevent the harm from occurring.” Yang v. Hardin, 37 F.3d 282, 285 (7th Cir.1994) (emphasis omitted).”    Hobbs v. Cappelluti, 899 F. Supp. 2d 738, 752-54 (N.D. Ill. 2012)
I was reading some law this afternoon – in fact – I was researching the status of a State employee (an ARDC attorney or administrator) who knows of should know that in bringing a disciplinary case he/she is acting beyond the delegation of his/her agency.    Simply put, every attorney at the IARDC is fully aware that he/she and Mr. Larkin lack the jurisdiction to interfere with your or my First Amendment Rights.   The Attorney who as an example as me if I was repentant for writing to the Attorney General of the United States obviously knew that I had a right to write the AG.  LB knew that her taking words and phrases out of context in my e-mails was a violation of my First Amendment Rights, and Mr. Larkin knew that the complaint filed against me was clearly a 42 USCA 1983 violation.   These are givens.    As these actions were all unethical and possibly criminal (violation of civil rights of a citizen is criminal act) pursuant to Himmel I have made the appropriate reports; however, as the violation of my rights continues I have to consider more aggressive action than an IARDC complaint.
It occurred to me, and I ferreted it out, to wit:
A plaintiff may state a claim for failure to intervene by showing that “any constitutional violation has been committed by a law enforcement official; and the [defendant] had a realistic opportunity to intervene to prevent the harm from occurring.” Yang v. Hardin, 37 F.3d 282, 285 (7th Cir.1994) (emphasis omitted).”    Hobbs v. Cappelluti, 899 F. Supp. 2d 738, 752-54 (N.D. Ill. 2012)
Thus, these very same attorneys have an affirmative duty to me.   They also have a duty to Mary, Gloria, yourself et al.  By accepting a public official position Mr. Larkin and his staff by writing statements such as ‘Mr. Stern is the guardian for Gloria’  ‘ there are no gold coins’  etc  are culpable in an 1983 case.   
Ken Ditkowsky

For Mr. Lanre Amu, we thank you for your courage to stand up and shout there are old fish lying about!

From Ken Ditkowsky today

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Nov 10, 2013 11:30 AM
To: JoAnne M Denison , Harry Heckert , j ditkowsky , Len Holland , Larry Chambers
Subject: Re: Fw: WestlawNext – 11 full text items for restrictions on free speech

The racial nexus of the hearing panel’s decision (even though disguised is most troubling.   It would be most helpful to Amur’s case to have as many ‘church members’ as possible write the IARDC (with a copy to AG Holder and the media) requesting an investigation of Mr. Larkin, his staff, and the particular hearing panel that rendered the decision.
Institutional racism cannot be tolerated in 21st Century America.   Jim Crow died!   We have in these cases more than a bias against people with a darker hue to their skin – we have Jim Crowism towards people with wrinkled skin!   The hearing board’s attitude and its ignoring the RULE OF LAW as set forth by the First Amendment and more particularly in 735 ILCS 110/5 is intolerable.
The action of the IARDC toward you and me even though violative of core values of America, the First Amendment, e.t al pales by comparison with obvious lack of respect accorded Mr. Amur.   As I did not fall off the turnip truck last night and have had clients who experience racial, ethnic, and religious intolerance it is obvious to me that had Mr. Amur had a skin color a few hues lighter the hearing panel would have been a bit more respectful in its remarks and not attempted to belittle him.  Subtle discrimination and racial inequality by government is worse than the committed by the KKK, Bull Connors and the like – at least we know where they are coming from and we can stop the use of precious State money to fund *****.
The question comes up as to whether lawyers have the right to exercise and advocate their unacceptable bias.   I would argue yes.  HOWEVER THEY CANNOT USE STATE OF ILLINOIS OR FEDERAL MONEY TO DO SO!
Thus recognizing this distinction and the right of the bad guys to exercise their rights of Free Speech the ‘church letters’ should seek to terminate the employment of the offending STATE EMPLOYEES and to the extent that they have violated other citizen’s Constitutional Rights ask for an INVESTIGATION of their possible 42 USCA 1983 and 18 USCA 1341.   Mr. Larkin is not immune from compliance with the very same laws as govern my conduct and your conduct, but like you and me he has a right to express his views and convictions (if any).
Ken Ditkowsky

Dear Readers;

Just to clarify, every US citizen has the right to speak freely and to criticize the government as it sees fit.  Public figures and politicians, by becoming famous, in the public eye and elected have almost no right to complain that they are being criticized.  It is my understanding that in Atty Amu’s cases, there was plenty of fishiness afoot that would lend him to take the route he did and warn the public that the judges in question were themselves being entirely questionable.

As Ken Ditkowsky told the review board during his oral argument, attorneys do NOT become second class citizens when they take their oath of office.    Rather, their duty to speak out, to the authorities, to warn the public, should take even greater precedence.

And, like it or not, we have quickly reached the information age where Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, blogs and other social and not so social media can instantaneously transmit, blunder, bloopers, inconsistencies, concerns, criticisms, jokes, polemic and satire over attorneys, judges, judicial decisions and judicial behavior.

Perhaps Yelp needs to extend its foray into the courtroom, judges and attorneys appearing in each courtroom to better inform the public.

And perhaps that is even a chunk of why the ARDC is clamping down on attorneys talking about corruption, deviations from what is normally or typically seen and other issues in the court room will most certainly fire about the internet, go viral and the gig will be up on perhaps some people that are just plain acting badly.  The blogs are one thing, but then they can easily be linked to numerous Facebook accounts, Twitter accounts, other blogs and someday the torrent of newsmedia and public outcry cannot be challenged, controlled, gag ordered or censored.  It can all easily become too much for comfort and too hard to control.

If is the job of the ARDC to root out and stop corruption, but they are not doing it, and dozens and dozens of serious citizen complaints are routinely dismissed with a rubber stamp when they should in fact be taken seriously, then it truly is up to the legal profession to get it’s act in gear and police itself.

Too many strange and unusual and inexplicable situations have already been reported on this and other probate blogs and other court corruption boards for the ARDC to ignore it or blame the messengers.

The public is getting organized, they are comparing judicial stories, judge’s names and attorney names on such a routine basis, now many are doing the work the FBI, the ARDC and other agencies could be doing, but for a 9 to 5 job and numerous coffee breaks, long lunches and organizational meetings to discuss plans to make plans and charts and create organizational themes.  Been there, done that.

It is hoped that this outcry will help lawyers and judges come to the same accountability and transparency that is already seen on the internet in terms of hiring practices, retention and promotional policies, published salaries, ethics reporting, etc. in order to strengthen proper procedures and polices conforming to basic ethics, honesty and morality.

Right now, there’s just some house cleaning to do.


An appeal from Gloria for court watchers Nov. 18, 2013 at 1 pm

From Gloria, see below and please try to help her and thanks for reading this.


Dear All,

I am fully aware that our struggles have taken different paths, and our paths only cross, or most of our paths only cross under the heading of ‘guardianship abuse’ — but no matter how any of us phrase it, we have or are in the mist of great change and opportunity.  I need to believe that Carolyn Toerpe, found in contempt of court for non compliance of a FED court’s order, and whose Motion to Dismiss the second Rule to Show Cause why she didn’t comply with the contempt order, was denied, will stand trial on November 18, 2013, 1 pm, in room 1404 and before Hon. Leonard Murray.  It is our opportunity to witness a LIVE abuser of the elderly and disabled, and when we help free my mother, we help hundreds of people discriminated and abused by a judicial controlled by a cottage industry of attorneys, who, live above the law just because the court(s) sanction their lawlessness and lies.  Well, the Probate courts, that is.
If we can all just put aside our differences, and participate in this bench trial,  it will not only help my Mother, and obviously me, but also attorney(s) Kenneth Ditkowsky and JoAnne Denison.
I’ve also copied law enforcement agencies who, have in the past protected Carolyn Toerpe and in fact, assisted Toerpe in her criminal actions against me, my property, and my Mother.  Since these agencies in the past have believed Toerpe — and care little about the facts, it would behoove you to also attend this bench trial.  As I have always said, don’t believe me, or any person: look at the facts.  Now law enforcement has an opportunity to witness who Toerpe truly is — and who she is is not a person who gave or gives a damn about my mother, or any other person for that matter, but in fact, has since day one, simply cared about stealing all of mother’s assets and property, and my assets and property too.  Toerpe, on June 9, 2009 became the respondent to a petition for a protective order: in retaliation, on June 30, 2009, she kidnapped Mother and took Mother out of Illinois and hid Mother so mother could not pursue the Petition for Protective order.  Then Toerpe converted the petition for protective order into a guardianship proceeding on August 26, 2009 and all the criminal Toerpe perpetrated and continues to perpetrate against my mother (and me, as well as Aunt Yo and all family and friends Mother loves and trusts) Toerpe through her attorneys Adam Stern, Cynthia Farenga, Peter Schmiedel, Harvey Jack Waller, Deborah Jo Soehlig, Amanda Byrne, et al, have convinced the Court(s) without an ounce of evidence, that I am the perpetrator.  
But now I’m ahead of myself. Please join me on November 18, 2013 and meet Carolyn Toerpe and see her attorneys in action — as Toerpe found in Contempt of Court is not ordered to appear and defend why she didn’t comply with the Contempt Order and purge herself.  
See you all on November 18, 2013, 1 pm, room 1404 at the Daley Center: you decide for yourselves.  

Thank you and healthy regards. (The above photograph with T. Colin Campbell, PhD, author of The China Study and Whole was taken on October 25, 2008.  According to Toerpe and Company my mother was incompetent and suffering from dementia.  Talk to any person in that photograph, and I am certain you will learn quite the opposite: she was and remains highly competent and very intelligent.)

In case you didn’t know, paying off a loan for a judge is “Dishonest Services”

Dear Readers;

It would appear, and I would hope, that no longer are judges receiving envelopes stuffed with cash, so if you want to corrupt a judge or a court, how would you do it?

Here’s an interesting story of how one man with a lot of money, did it in two steps:  first a nice large campaign contribution and then something a little more personal:  he took out a loan on the judge’s home and paid it off for him.  How very kind of him.  But apparently the judge did not report that and someone took it as “Dishonest Services”.

Oh, there was a lot of legal argument, and the attorney involved, a Paul Minor, has argued for years “there is nothing wrong with that”, but he did not win that argument in the end and served time at club fed med.

Here is the article:

And while I have heard that some of my probate victims have gone to Timothy C Evans, presiding judge of the circuit court with evidence of highly suspect loan records and documents, and they have gone to the FBI and nothing has happened, apparently the FBI did investigate in Atty Minor’s case:


and yet another great article on some investigative research showing the problem is wide spread:

The continuing Saga of Mr. Amu’s Disciplinary case for allegedly lying about corruption in the courts

See the decision from his Tribunal and my comments and THEN please post your comments:

Decision from Atty Lanre Amu’s tribunal:

Atty Amu’s timeline of events in the cases:

Again, it is critical if you are going to post you first be familiar with the case.  If you are going to post any first amendment restrictions on cases, plse use proper case citations (NOT trial court or administrative hearing decisions, please use appellate case law language from the federal appellate courts or the US supreme ct).  thanks



From Atty Ken Ditkowsky – Amu’s presumptions contrary to the Rule of Law

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Nov 3, 2013 6:11 AM
To: JoAnne M Denison , “ACLU@ACLU.ORG”
Cc: Atty Amu ‘Lanu — honest atty oppressed by ARDC
Subject: Re: objections to ARDC

I welcome all efforts that foster and promote the ‘core’ values of America.   I learned a long time ago that all the brains did not go in my head.
My objection was based upon Mr. Amu’s e-mail that I responded to yesterday morning.   An effective defense has to be based upon knowledge of the subject matter and the law.   A defense has to be based upon knowing and understanding the cases and the effect – and most importantly understanding the First Principles of America Law.
The National Socialist credo of the IARDC exhibited in decision in Mr. Amu’s case is most troubling.  It was not troubling that they found the facts to be contrary to Mr. Amu’s version, but, it was horrible that they ignored the ‘standard of proof’ and created presumptions that were contrary to law.   Like it or not this outrage was and is only the tip of the iceberg.
The ‘core’ values of American democracy are found in the ‘Bill of Rights’ – the First ten amendments to the Constitution and repeated in Article 1 of the Illinois Constitution.   The fact that the hearing panel repudiated the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment in their condescending writing is my focus and the reason that I wrote the Attorney General of the United States to demand an investigation of the obvious racial nexus of the decision.  Wherefore does any State of Illinois institution treat another citizen as a second class citizen!   Wherefore does any State of Illinois institution deny another citizen his/her First Amendment Rights.
A little over a half century ago in Germany people who exhibited similar disrespect for the equality and rights of man plunged the world in war over this very issue.  The Amu decision by the hearing panel of the IARDC demonstrates that Mr. Larkin and his minions have learned absolutely nothing!   42 USCA 1983 has been violated and we all have to call upon the Attorney General of the United States to investigate and punish this outrage.
Ken Ditkowsky
The Illinois Registration and Discipline Commission attorneys should quite definitely file their annual statements of economic interest and should be like Caesar’s wife.   The Commission should demonstrate respect for individual rights and in particular respect for Article 1 of the Illinois Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the public policy of the State of Illinois as stated in 735 ILCS 110/5.
I am concerned that the Amu case, and in particular the treatment that he received, and the words and phrases of the Hearing Board decision are manifestations of a basis having a racial nexus or worse.   I do not believe that it makes any difference whatsoever if Amu’s critical comments concerning the judges engaged in his cases is true or false.   They are absolutely privileged.  More importantly the IARDC was not provided jurisdiction to interfere or impede Amu’s free speech.
If you get into the nitty gritty of whether or not Amu is accurate, justified, or ***** the important issue gets side-tracked.    Side-tracking the wrongful conduct of government entities is the method by which despots are able to remain in power and continue to prey on the public.
It is too easy to divert the attention of the public by taking one or more of Amu’s statements out of context render it intemperate or nutzy and the criminal violations of 42 USCA 1981 – 1983 fall by the wayside.   This is exactly what the hearing panel and the IARDC attorneys appear to have attempted so that they could use color of statute to deny him his rights as a citizen.   DO NOT FALL INTO THIS TRAP.
Ken Ditkowsky

From Joanne;
And think about all of this logically.  Mr. Amu received very unusual, not ordinary decisions:  the court ruled there was no effective service when in fact it was undisputed a gas station attendant working for Defendant gas station received a copy of a summons and complaint from a process server in one case and in another, the Mega Corp defendant took from August to December to file a reponse, the judge gave Mega Corp all that time which they effectively used to file a 113 page motion to dismiss.  The judge then turned around and told Mr. Amu he had only 7 days to answer and not the more typical 21 to 28 days to answer!
Of course Mr. Amu fully and promptly informed his clients this was highly unusual and he could opine as much as he wanted to about what was actually going on behind the scenes. His clients were not stupid, they knew there was something fishy afoot in Law Division.
Attys have to be honest to their clients.  And Mr. Amu then filed an appropriate pleading based upon his opinions and thoughts.  Pleadings are 100% protected speech.  If the court wants to discipline an attorney, it has Rule 137 sanctions.  The ARDC was not there, they were not involved.  The judge controls his or her own courtroom.
The judge dismissed these cases and they were over.  Mr. Amu published his thoughts and opinions on his blog.  At that point in time, they become political speech, and political speech is one of the types of speech which should receive the highest protection under the US constitution.  The judge is a political, elected figure, or the appointee of a political, elected figure. The comments, as they are recent, are also newsworthy and consist of a collection of thoughts and opinions of an attorney who worked on a case.  The public has a right to know those as long as the atty is willing to disseminate those on a blog.
So, all in all, the most salient portions of why Mr. Amu was also railroaded and his case is outrageous is:
1) pleadings are protected 100% by the first amendment to vigorously represent a client, and if the atty suspects something fishy, he can opine on that in a pleading;
2) newsworthy exception.  Mr. Amu and his clients may freely publish their thoughts about their recently dismissed case without interference or thought police involvement
3) opinions  exception.  Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion.
4) opinions concerning a political, elected official. These should be afforded the highest protection because they ensure an open, free and democratic society.  One that is strong and impervious to anarchy because it is transparent, honest, open and ethical and the people are satisfied this is true.
5) famous figure.  Since judges are elected and are well known in their relevant court system among attorneys and the litigants, they arise to being famous in that relevant marketplace and criticisms can flow freely.
If any one can think of other exceptions why this speech should have been afford the highest protections allowable, plmk.
take care

Remedies for violations of ethics reporting, 5 ILCS 420

   (5 ILCS 420/4A-107) (from Ch. 127, par. 604A-107)
    Sec. 4A-107. Any person required to file a statement of economic interests under this Article who willfully files a false or incomplete statement shall be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
    Except when the fees and penalties for late filing have been waived under Section 4A-105, failure to file a statement within the time prescribed shall result in ineligibility for, or forfeiture of, office or position of employment, as the case may be; provided, however, that if the notice of failure to file a statement of economic interests provided in Section 4A-105 of this Act is not given by the Secretary of State or the county clerk, as the case may be, no forfeiture shall result if a statement is filed within 30 days of actual notice of the failure to file. The Secretary of State shall provide the Attorney General with the names of persons who failed to file a statement. The county clerk shall provide the State's Attorney of the county of the entity for which the filing of statement of economic interest is required with the name of persons who failed to file a statement.
    The Attorney General, with respect to offices or positions described in items (a) through (f) and items (j), (l), (n), and (p) of Section 4A-101 of this Act, or the State's Attorney of the county of the entity for which the filing of statements of economic interests is required, with respect to offices or positions described in items (g) through (i), item (k), and item (o) of Section 4A-101 of this Act, shall bring an action in quo warranto against any person who has failed to file by either May 31 or June 30 of any given year and for whom the fees and penalties for late filing have not been waived under Section 4A-105.
(Source: P.A. 96-6, eff. 4-3-09; 96-550, eff. 8-17-09; 96-1000, eff.

So, the first step in all of this is to send a demand to the Secretary of State to provide the Attorney General with a list of the names of persons who failed to file a statement.  Atty Lanre Amu should do this on Monday, he is under an Order to Show Cause  why his name should not be removed from the rolls of attorneys for the ND Illinois court system.

The process will be started on Monday, however YOU can also send your demand that the ARDC file statements of economic interest by calling, faxing, mailing or emailing the Secretary of State.

Jesse White
800-252-8980 (toll free in Illinois)
213 State Capitol
Springfield, IL 62756
217-785-3000 (outside Illinois)

There is no time like the present for accountability and transparency at the IARDC.

Democracy is not a spectator sport.  If YOU want honest ethical attorneys and an open and honest court system, it is up to YOU to demand it.

I will publish Mr. Jesse White’s fax and email tomorrow so we can get this process going.

Also, please write or call the IARDC and ask them 1) do their ethics reporting going back for all years in office; 2) publish the salary of every attorney employee and supervisor; 3) explain how employees are chosen and the process; 4) make all supervisors sign an agreement they have adhered to the Shakman decision (if you don’t know what this is, please Google it).

If we work together, we can have an open, honest, ethical and transparent ARDC and we can thereby improve our court system.

But it starts with YOU. I can’t do this alone, nor can Ken, but we ARE licensed attys, we specialize in researching laws, rules and regulations and deciphering them for YOU the public.

Have a wonderful Sunday and remember the time has changed by and hour.  Remember it’s spring forward and fall back.  Today we are falling back!




7-2-10; 97-754, eff. 7-6-12.)

KDD’s Letter to Atty General Eric Holder

Dear General Holder,
I am writing you concerning the plight of Attorney Lanre Amu.    Mr. Amu is a ‘person of color’ who happens to be an attorney.   His origin is Kenya.   
Mr. Amu called me today to discuss his problems with Mr. Larkin and the IARDC.   Briefly, Mr. Amu indicates that he was disturbed by some events that took place in the Courts of Cook County, Illinois and was rather vocal concerning his unhappiness.    He was not held in contempt of court for his statements but he did receive a IARDC complaint against him.  In a highly unusual hearing board without investigating if the statements made by Mr. Amu were true or untrue, but assuming instead that they were untrue because they were intemperate recommended suspension of his license.
A review board petition was filed; however, the IARDC took an unusual position in that it sought and obtained the suspension of Mr.Amu’s license in the interim. 
While some of the statements made by Mr. Amu are troubling, about a decade ago some similar statements were made concerning 15 sitting judges by the then United States Attorney and a gaggle of lawyers including myself.   We accused some judges of soliciting bribes and other serious crimes and ultimately the Federal Court sent some of the judges to jail.  
I am not a judge or a trier of fact, but under Illinois Law 735 ILCS 110/5, the First Amendment, Article 1 of the Illinois Constitution and a historical tradition that goes back several hundred years the right of Mr. Amu to speak out is absolute.   The recent cases of Alvarez, Brown, Citizens United, Snyder all attest to this fact.    However, as it does not appear that Mr. Amu did anything other than exercise his First Amendment Rights the over-kill exhibited by the IARDC needs an immediate investigation by the Justice Department.
Mr. Amu’s problems do not fall into the ‘elder cleansing’ category, but, they appear to fall into the quagmire of possible racial politics.   Historically the mere fact that a citizen had a skin of a darker hue was ‘grounds’ for intolerable discriminatory practices.   Mr. Amu is too proud to make this observation; however, as a lawyer who has practiced law for more than half a century and lived through the 1960’s my paranoia gene is activated.   How is it that it is such an emergency to take Mr. Amu’s license away from him prior to the review panel examining the hearing board’s extra-ordinary decision in which IARDC assumes jurisdiction that was not delegated to them.    Why is it necessary for any citizen – including Mr. Amu to be repentant for exercising his First Amendment Rights?   
I know nothing of the facts of Mr. Amu’s complaints concerning the Judges of Cook County.  I know nothing about his pleadings except that I have been informed that he was not sanctioned pursuant to Rule 137.  (I did not see that the hearing panel found that he was sanctioned).   I do not see that any defamation suits were filed against him, nor do I read the one or more of the judges was called to testify under oath to deny the charges.   I am blinded by the fact that an American who happens to have a darker hue to his skin than I is being punished for speaking out.
As an American I call upon you as Attorney General of the United States of America to do an HONEST complete and comprehensive investigation as to 1) whether Mr. Larkin and the IARDC have jurisdiction to regulate the free speech of attorneys, 2) whether attorneys are second class citizens, 3) whether there is a racial component in the prosecution of Mr. Amu, and 4) if Mr. Amu’s civil rights protected by 42 USCA 1981, 42 USCA 1982 and 42 USCA 1983 have been violated.
For the record Mr. Larkin and the IARDC have indicated that they believe that my writing you this letter is unethical and I also am being prosecuted.   As an American citizen and a citizen of the state of Illinois I believe it is my duty to bring the Amu case to your attention (and that of other law enforcement authority).    Dr. King pointed out that everything that Hitler did was legal!    Americans do not wish to wait until it is legal to assault our first amendment rights.
Thank you for your courtesy and prompt defense of liberty!
[nb – as the Supreme Court of the United States has pointed out  – Mr. Larkin, Mr. Ditkowsky, et al have not been delegated the authority to interfere with the Free Speech of other citizen and political and content related speech are absolute rights’
Ken Ditkowsky

The Tribunal Asks: Is USPS (Post Office) tracking accurate?



At the last “pretrial” conference, the tribunal and SO started to engage in a huge, huge discussion over how my package of exhibits came a day later than theirs and how horrible and awful that was and the SO offers the “tracking” for my package. (Now I want you to know that a couple months earlier, when I offered to show I put a package in the mail on X day, I was told the Chair would not consider it.  Now the tables are turned and it has become oh so important.)  Two faced?  I hope they choose the Katie Perry one from Party City.

Google is “USPS tracking accurate?”
From Google, in order of popularity:

From Yahoo Answers:

 usps tracking accurate?

riley17 asked 4 years ago

yesterday i ordered an iphone off of ebay from a seller in north carolina. i went on to track the package and it says i should be receiving it today but i want to know how accurate usps is. i heard it sort of has a bad reputation…what do you think?

Best AnswerVoter’s Choice

 Volusian answered 4 years ago

It is not nearly as reliable as UPS and FEDEX tracking. In many cases, it’s useless. (Emphasis added)

From the day it was mailed, the general guidelines though for USPS:

First class Mail 3-5 days
Priority Mail: 2-3 days, occasionally 4 days
Parcel Post – 6-8 days
Media Mail – anywhere from 7-14 days, and, in rare instances, up to 21 days.

Mailing a package in the morning or afternoon often accounts for a day’s difference in delivery–or more.

From Kilroy Reports:

USPS Tracking

Has anyone ever had a good accurate experience with the USPS tracking? I had an item that they received the tracking yesterday, according the to site, and delivered today. I got the tracking number from the shipper on Monday. I tend to believe they picked up the package no later than Wednesday. Why is their tracking so useless? I’ve also received packages in the past that the web site didn’t update as delivered for a few more days.

When will the people realize that with DRM they aren’t purchasing anything?
actions · 2009-Jul-24 4:31 pm ·

RIP Splashy – We miss you
Lakeside, CA

It’s hit and miss and depends on the post office doing the updates. I’ve had packages where tracking was right on and others where I had no clue what was going on because the tracking was never updated.

Founding member, 2002-2003, 2005-2006 Director of Communications, 2004-2005 Secretary for the Crunchenstein Project 93254336
actions · 2009-Jul-24 4:33 pm ·


Montgomery, IL
·AT&T DSL Service
    reply to Kilroy

I have not really experienced “accurate” tracking with USPS. Part of the problem is that it isn’t intended to be a tracking service but rather it is meant for delivery confirmation only.

You get to see when an item was delivered but you will not always see its travels from point A to point B in any sort of guaranteed accuracy.

So as the number is referred to as a “delivery confirmation” and not a “tracking” number per say.
actions · 2009-Jul-24 4:37 pm ·

Mr Neutron
Ceaseless, Tasteless, and Gormless
Gorham, ME

said by BoulderHill1:

So as the number is referred to as a “delivery confirmation” and not a “tracking” number per say.
Exactly. I believe (but am not sure) that the only mail product they offer true tracking on is Express Mail and even that doesn’t mean you’re going to get the same kind of tracking experience that UPS or FedEx offers.

I understand the frustration, but as far as I can tell, the USPS doesn’t have any incentive to offer “real” tracking. Their present offering is “good enough” for most people and with the USPS, “good enough” is, well, just perfect.

From Joanne:

The upshot: The USPS does not really run a “tracking service”.  Not all locations are outfitted with real time tracking equipment.  Sometimes stations are skipped, sometimes stations are put in later when someone has “time” to do it, AND tracking can hold up your package while that package goes to a different department waiting for someone to track it.  Often all the tracking shows up on the day of delivery.

Again, the USPS does NOT offer accurate tracking. What is offers is accurate DELIVERY information.  That’s what they say on their website, on the software and on the package labels.  No where does it say “track your package” or “our tracking is accu

If your package gets “stuck” and forgotten at a USPS location, often the tracking is helpful because you can call that postoffice and ask them to find the package and move it along.

I once sent a book to a buyer in Hawaii.  After 7 days the buyer emailed me and asked where the book was.  I sent him another.  He got that one in 3 days!  After 10 days it finally appeared on “tracking” at a post office in California (after having been sent back and forth to Minnesota and San Francisco a couple of times).  I called the post office a couple of times to find the book and they eventually called me back and put it on a plane to Kauii, where the buyer received that one after 3 weeks!  True story.

95% of the mail gets coast to coast in 5 days.  The other 5%?  Who knows.

I just talked to a banker at AB and she said the worst USPS story she had was 2 months.
I think I used to have a Post Card from the USPTO Patent Office (they date stamp these when a package is received and put them in the mail back to you), was about 2 years!  It must have fallen behind a desk or equipment, I don’t know.  In any case when you get mail that is months or even years after the mailing date, they never explain.  It just shows up.

If I get a chance, I’ll try to find that shipping from the Kauii buyer–what a nightmare.  Bouncing around the US and then stopping for a week in SF!

Defenses to Defamation and other content based torts


With respect to the above exhibits, the undersigned is willing to agree to use of the attached exhibits during trial subject to the following terms and conditions:

1.    that all redactions are clearly indicated on the face of the document and the areas redacted are clearly delineated.

2.    the that the person printing out the documents will swear that the exhibits in question are true and accurate at the time the document was printed out.

3.    that they are subject to the affirmative defenses that Respondent has already enumerated to the tribunal, namely:  

    a.    First Amendment to the US constitution,
    b.    the Free Speech provision of the Illinois Constitution,
    c.    47 USC sec 230 pertaining to the Internet Decency/Immunity act and the posting of others upon the blog in question,
    d.     the Illinois Elder Abuse Act which provides immunity from disciplinary action for reporting incidences of elder abuse and exploitation;
    e.    The stated policy of the State of Illinois under 735 ILSC 110/5 or the Illinois Citizens Participation Act (see below).

4.    Copyright infringement is not waived.  It is asserted that large portions of the printouts are not fair use nor necessary for trial  and the IARDC should not particpate in wrongful or illegal activities, but that the Tribunal should hold an in camera hearing to determine whether each paragraph and sentence is necessary for a trial on charges asserted in the ARDC’s 01/0813 complaint and then only those actual sentences and paragraphs maybe copied, used and disseminated during the hearing.

5.    Traditional affirmative defenses to defamation in Illinois caselaw, namely,

hyperbole, exaggeration, litigation reporting, fair reporting, innocent construction, political/newsworthy figure criticisms, opinion and all other common law defenses.

It is to be further noted for the record, that the parties do not decide relevance;
this is up to the trier of law.

This waiver is also predicated on the declaration by the Rule 253 disclosure and a declaration to the tribunal that the person in question from WordPress is a qualified internet and blogging forensic witness and has received adequate training in same to analyze all blog changes and in particular on WordPress.

The undersigned is also asking that the ARDC review her documents and analyze for relevance and at time of introduction provide the requisite foundation.

The undersigned asserts that all portions of her blog are irrelevant to this proceeding because the IARDC has not been granted the authority to regulate speech on a non commercial, content oriented blog that is geared toward probate victims and their families and discussing their troubles and issues in probate court.  This is pursuant to Citizens United and other relevant cases.

                        Respectfully Submitted,

                        JoAnne M. Denison

Please note that any actions taken contrary to stated “public policies” of the State of Illinois as enacted by the legislature are ineffective and may not be enforced in any court of law or legal forum.

    (735 ILCS 110/5)
    Sec. 5. Public policy. Pursuant to the fundamental philosophy of the American constitutional form of government, it is declared to be the public policy of the State of Illinois that the constitutional rights of citizens and organizations to be involved and participate freely in the process of government must be encouraged and safeguarded with great diligence. The information, reports, opinions, claims, arguments, and other expressions provided by citizens are vital to effective law enforcement, the operation of government, the making of public policy and decisions, and the continuation of representative democracy. The laws, courts, and other agencies of this State must provide the utmost protection for the free exercise of these rights of petition, speech, association, and government participation.
    Civil actions for money damages have been filed against citizens and organizations of this State as a result of their valid exercise of their constitutional rights to petition, speak freely, associate freely, and otherwise participate in and communicate with government. There has been a disturbing increase in lawsuits termed “Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation” in government or “SLAPPs” as they are popularly called.
    The threat of SLAPPs significantly chills and diminishes citizen participation in government, voluntary public service, and the exercise of these important constitutional rights. This abuse of the judicial process can and has been used as a means of intimidating, harassing, or punishing citizens and organizations for involving themselves in public affairs.
    It is in the public interest and it is the purpose of this Act to strike a balance between the rights of persons to file lawsuits for injury and the constitutional rights of persons to petition, speak freely, associate freely, and otherwise participate in government; to protect and encourage public participation in government to the maximum extent permitted by law; to establish an efficient process for identification and adjudication of SLAPPs; and to provide for attorney’s fees and costs to prevailing movants.
(Source: P.A. 95-506, eff. 8-28-07.)