KDD/JMD v. JL – Responses to Motions to Dismiss

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Feb 22, 2014 5:47 AM
To: Jo Anne M Denison , Harry Heckert , Lawrence Hyman , Don Johnson
Cc: “ACLU@ACLU.ORG” , “ilsenate29@sbcglobal.net” , “IllinoisLawyerNow@isba.org” , “ilhouse51@sbcglobal.net” , “ilrep49@sbcglobal.net” , “ilsenate20@sbcglobal.net” , “illhouse@aol.com” , “isilverstein@senatedem.ilga.gov” , “ildbambic@govabuse.org” , “tips@elderabuseexposed.com” , Eric Holder , matt senator kirk
Subject: Fw: Response to Motion

 JoAnne
Enclosed please find our response to the Motion to Dismiss our civil rights lawsuit based upon Mr. Larkin, the Administrator of the IARDC, acting in concert with Guardian ad litems Stern, Farenga, and Attorney Peter Schmiedel to attempt to silence our call for an HONEST COMPLETE AND COMPREHENSIVE INVESTIGATION of Elder abuse, financial exploitation of the elderly, and the final step in elder cleansing – assisted involuntary suicide.
Mr. Larkin’s defense is to try to distort the facts and characterize the complaint as a lawsuit against the State of Illinois.   Except for being intellectually dishonest and part of the continuing pattern of misrepresentation and distortion that has been so obvious in the various ‘elder cleansing cases’ and in the ‘cover up’ of the corruption that the participants in the elder cleansing cottage industry indulge the Memorandum that we respond to is an interesting document.
If the miscreants are required to respond to the allegations of the complaint rather than some mythical document of their own making, Larkin has a number of problems that he cannot over-come, to wit:
1) We did not sue the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission.   They are not a party to the lawsuit.   Thus, any claim of Sovereign immunity has not basis – Larkin may be part of the political royalty, but in the eyes of the law he is entitled to no special status.
2) The Rule of Law is promulgated by the Supreme Court of the United States, not Larkin and the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission.
3) The Commission can only act within its delegated powers.   In Loving the Court just knocked the IRS in the head for exceeding its delegated powers!    Larkin and his lawyers are aware that he cannot employ powers that no body of government enjoys – i.e. the effort to limit, impede, or hinder the First Amendment Rights of citizens.   As a lawyer, Larkin should be aware that Circuit Court Judges (state judges) are elected.  Larkin should be aware that as elected officials government cannot protect Judges from critical comment or even abrasive and totally false verbal attacks outside of the actual Court proceedings.
4) the Commission is demonstrating a disrespect for the Court by citing cases that it knows are no longer the law, or as they did in Sawyer totally misrepresenting the ruling of the Court.
In reading the documents filed by Schmiedel and Larkin it is apparent that for undisclosed reasons they have a desperate stake in preserving the cottage industry of elder cleansing.  With the specter of Greylord being raised again it is very sad that history is repeating itself and the funds of the State of Illinois are not being spent to protect the public, but to protect those who are separating our most vulnerable citizens – the elderly and the disabled – from their liberty, their property, their civil rights and their human rights.
[the legal profession disgraced itself by its conduct in Operation Greylord and in these elderly cleansing cases it is allowing history to repeat itself.   For the record I am complying with 18 UsCA 4 in reporting the 18 USCA 371 actions by Larkin, Schmiedel, Stern and Farenga and forwarding copies of this Memorandum to law enforcement. ]
Ken Ditkowsky

http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/

From Joanne:

And in my usual fashion of ensuring openness and transparency to you, my reader, I will be publishing all the Pacer pleadings on this blog.  We have 18 so far and I hope to have them all up in a few minutes. The suit Ken and I filed is about our civil rights.  All I have done is run a blog.  It should be protected by the first amendment.  It is clearly political speech imploring the court system to do a better job because there are a ton of a ton of a ton of (valid) complaints out there.

Here is the current drive:

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwSlRTQjRvVFhZcVU&usp=sharing

And I will add to it often as possible.

Transparency and accountability.

I can hardly wait for discovery to open.  I have a ton of a ton of questions about the IARDC.  For example, how is it that JL is sued personally, but he has THREE attorneys working for a state agency defending him with public funds?  Those funds belong to the public and not JL’s private fiefdom.  Also, if you take a look at the 2012 Annual Report you will note that the IARDC apparently has some sort of slush fund of some $21 million in “investments”.  What exactly are they investing in, and why isn’t this disclosed to any attorney that they call in on a disciplinary matter?  Who decides what to invest in, how are they managed?  Are there kickbacks we’ll never know about because the IARDC refuses to comply with the 2009 Illinois Ethics Act?  I have a whole lot of questions.  I have seen and smelled the fish around this one for a long time.

 

JoAnne

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