From Ken Ditkowsky–his appeal to the Ill. Supreme Court

 
Exceptions to Review Board Report and Recommendations:
Now comes Kenneth Ditkowsky and for his Exceptions to Review Board Report and Recommendations states:
That the Review Board Report is deficient in that:
1)      320 ILCS 20/4 provides for Ditkowsky’s complete immunity (from Disciplinary proceedings) for complaints to Law enforcement concerning Elder Abuse, Financial Exploitation (Elder Cleansing).
2)      That these instant Commission proceedings are in contravention of this Court’s  decision in the case of  In re: Karavidas 2013 IL 1157l67[1] .
3)      The Policy of the State of Illinois pursuant to 735 ILCS 110/5 is violated by the prosecution of these proceedings and the Review Board report.   The Commission has no delegation of authority to vitiate the Policy of the State of Illinois.   (see Article 1 of the Illinois Constitution).
4)       That the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission lacks jurisdiction and a delegation to review, impede or otherwise interfere with First Amendment Rights of ‘political’ and/or ‘content’ related speech of Attorney Ditkowsky or any other person.  (see Alvarez 132 S. Ct 2537, Ashcroft 535 US 564, Brown 131 S. Ct 2729, Synder 131 S. Ct 876, Citizens United 558 US 310).[2]
5)      The Review Board did not require that the Commission plead and prove its case, or comport with the basic protections of due process required of all other government agencies and litigants, and to in particular plead and prove its claim case with evidence from persons who had actual knowledge of the facts.    (See Discovery responses of Commission – attached in Appendix).
6)      Review Board rejected the Rule of Law as set forth by this Court and the Supreme Court of the United States.
Recommendations
1)      Dismiss Disciplinary proceedings promulgated by Commission against Attorney Kenneth Ditkowsky,
2)      Review proceedings by the Commission for violations of Rule 137.  (Based upon the Commission’s admissions)
3)      Order an Honest, Complete and Comprehensive Investigation of all the ‘elder cleansing’ cases starting with In re: Sykes 09 P 4585 (Cook County) and all similar cases.
4)      Provide such other and different relief as might be equitable and proper.
Respectfully Submitted,


[1] See 18 USCA 3,4, 371, 1983
[2] The Commission also lacks the authority to prevent or impede an attorney from performing his professional responsibilities pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 137 and/or Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.
Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s