From KKD – some new arguments for Free Speech

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Mar 31, 2014 2:03 PM
To: NASGA , probate sharks , j ditkowsky , Harry Heckert , Lawrence Hyman , Jo Anne M Denison , Eric Holder , matt senator kirk
Subject: Fw: WestlawNext – U.S. v. Stevens

In attempting to write the petition for cert I have been fascinated by the parallel between the argument “I have just been following orders” and the knowingly inappropriate coupling of obeying the law with spurious arguments of Mr. Larkin and the IARDC.    I now understand why Mr. Larkin dropped his argument based upon the Sawyer case.    Reading the case may be a motivation – however, the ruling in the case is so contrary to his position that it is akin to bringing a gun to a knife fight and handing it to the opposition for use.    
Sawyer makes it very clear that Larkin’s actions in prosecuting Mr. Amu, Ms. Denison and me is not only ultra vires but bad faith.    Take a look at the following quotes:
The First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.” “[A]s a general matter, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.” Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 535 U.S. 564, 573, 122 S.Ct. 1700, 152 L.Ed.2d 771 (2002)  United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460, 468, 130 S. Ct. 1577, 1584, 176 L. Ed. 2d 435 (2010)
Could this be any clearer!? How does Larkin reconcile his position and that of his committees with the principles recited by the United States Supreme Court.   This statement is a clear repudiation of his complaints against Amu, Denison and me.    However, it gets better:
From 1791 to the present,” however, the First Amendment has “permitted restrictions upon the content of speech in a few limited areas,” and has never “include[d] a freedom to disregard these traditional limitations.” Id., at 382–383, 112 S.Ct. 2538. These “historic and traditional categories long familiar to the bar,” Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of N.Y. State Crime Victims Bd., 502 U.S. 105, 127, 112 S.Ct. 501, 116 L.Ed.2d 476 (1991) (KENNEDY, J., concurring in judgment)—including obscenity, Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 483, 77 S.Ct. 1304, 1 L.Ed.2d 1498 (1957), defamation, Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U.S. 250, 254–255, 72 S.Ct. 725, 96 L.Ed. 919 (1952), fraud, Virginia Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748, 771, 96 S.Ct. 1817, 48 L.Ed.2d 346 (1976), incitement, Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447–449, 89 S.Ct. 1827, 23 L.Ed.2d 430 (1969) (per curiam ), and speech integral to criminal conduct, Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co., 336 U.S. 490, 498, 69 S.Ct. 684, 93 L.Ed. 834 (1949)—are “well-defined *469 and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem.” Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 571–572, 62 S.Ct. 766, 86 L.Ed. 1031 (1942).   United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460, 468-69, 130 S. Ct. 1577, 1584, 176 L. Ed. 2d 435 (2010)
The bootstrap approach of Larkin has been refuted from the beginning of time, to wit:
[I]f any accidental mischief happens to follow from the performance of a lawful act, the party stands excused *576 from all guilt: but if a man be doing any thing unlawful, and a consequence ensues which he did not foresee or intend, as the death of a man or the like, his want of foresight shall be no excuse; for, being guilty of one offence, in doing antecedently what is in itself unlawful, he is criminally guilty of whatever consequence may follow the first misbehaviour.” 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 26–27 (1769).  Dean v. United States, 556 U.S. 568, 575-76, 129 S. Ct. 1849, 1855, 173 L. Ed. 2d 785 (2009)
Thus, as Larkin is or was well aware that it is an illegal act to separate a senior citizen from his/her family, prior life, prior activities and her life savings he has strike one against him and must be deemed to be aiding and abetting the miscreants in their ‘elder cleansing’  18 USCA 371.     More seriously, as he is aware of the actions of Stern, Farenga, Schmiedel, et. al and in particular the non-inventory of the contents of Mary Sykes’ safety deposit box (and funds hidden in her mattress), he had an obligation pursuant to 18 USCA 4 to report such information to law enforcement.    Instead, Larkin and his crew invested in a ‘cover-up’ and in doing so, he denied me my First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights.      
Ken Ditkowsky
—– Forwarded Message —–
From: “” <>
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2014 11:33 AM
Subject: WestlawNext – U.S. v. Stevens

ken ditkowsky sent you content from WestlawNext.
Please see the attached file.

Item:        U.S. v. Stevens
Citation:    559 U.S. 460
Sent On:    March 31, 2014
Sent By:    ken ditkowsky

Quotes on the Truth

Quotes about the TRUTH

Dedicated to the IARDC

1. Many people, especially ignorant people, want to punish you for speaking the truth, for being correct, for being you. Never apologize for being correct, or for being years ahead of your time. If you’re right and you know it, speak your mind. Speak your mind even if you are a minority of one. The truth is still the truth. Mondandas Gandhi

2. I believe the unvarnished truth and unconditional love with have the final word in reality. That is why right, temporarily defeated is stronger than evil triumphant. Dr. Martin Luther King.

3. Christ said, the truth will set you free, but Truth is not found once and forever, Truth is eternal and the quest for Truth must also be eternal. Max Heindel

4. The truth is like a lion. You don’t have to defend it. Let it loose and it will defend itself.

5. Lies run sprints, but the truth runs marathons. Michael Jackson

6. Please don’t ever lie to me, unless you’re absolutely sure I can never, ever find out the truth.

7. Truth is like oil lying on the top of water. No matter how much you try to push it down with more water, it will always eventually float to the top.

8. Truth does not really hurt, rather it is our resistance to its message that causes us pain. Vernon Howard.

9. Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn’t. Mark Twain.

10. No one has the right to judge us because no one really knows what we have been through. They may have heard about our stories, but they never did once feel what we felt in our hearts.

11. Truth is born into this world only with pangs and tribulations, and every fresh truth is received unwillingly. Alfred Russel Wallace

12. I will never be upset that you have lied to me, rather, I will always be upset that no one, including me, will believe you anymore.

13. While it is correct that the truth will set you free, there is no doubt that the first time you start to actually hear it, it will often make you miserable.

14. The worst thing about being lied to or lied about is understanding that you weren’t worth telling the truth.

15. A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if only a few believe it.

16. The only people who will be mad at you for speaking the truth are those people who are living a lie. Keep on speaking the truth.

17. They must find it difficult, those who have taken authority as the truth, rather than truth as authority. G Massey, Egyptologist

18. You had better tell the truth up front, or someone will come along and tell it for you.

19. This is who I am. No one said you had to like it.

20. People were created to be loved. Things were created to be used. The reason why the world is in such great pain is because things are being loved and people are being used.

21. Telling someone the truth is actually an act of love.

22. Political language is designed to make lies sound like truth and murder appear respectable. George Orwell.

23. Truth hurts; doubt ruins; lies destroy.

24. People hate the truth. Luckily, the truth does not care.

25. The only thing more shocking than truth, are the lies people create to cover it up.

26. There are only two mistakes one can made along the road to truth. The first is not going all the way and the second is not starting at all. Buddha.

27. Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. George Orwell

28. In time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell

29. There are some ideas that are so utterly wrong that only a very intelligent person could ever believe them.

30. Three things cannot be hidden for very long: the sun, the moon and the truth. Buddha

31. Truth will ultimately prevail, but only when great pains are taken to bring it to light. George Washington.

32. The truth is, one always knows what is the right thing to do, the hard part is actually following that truth.

33. Truth is so rare that is delightful to tell it. Emily Dickenson

34. A Harmful truth is better than a useful lie. Thomas Mann

35. The first reaction to truth is often hatred. Tertullian.

36. There are only two people who will tell you the truth: an enemy who has lost his temper and a friend that loves you dearly. Antisthenes

37. I say that Justice is Truth in action. Desmond Israeli

38. For every good reason to lie, there will be a better reason to tell the truth.

39. The pursuit of Truth will set you free, even if you never catch up with it. Clarence Darrow.

40. We occasionally stumble over Truth, but then we pick ourselves up and hurry off as if nothing had ever happened. Winston Churchill.

From Ken K. Ditkowsky–the law on the First Amendment

Dear Readers;

Kenneth is working on his Writ of Cert to the US Supreme Ct and we all wish him quite well.

Being privy to some of his writings, below is a sneak peek:


From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Mar 28, 2014 9:30 AM
To: Richard Cordero , Journalist Janet Phelan , Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall , Don Lashley , Nick Philippov
Cc: Tim NASGA , NASGA , probate sharks , Jo Anne M Denison , Harry Heckert , j ditkowsky
Subject: Re: Proposal to expose public wrongdoing and empower We the People to hold public servants accountable

Thank you for including me in your e-mailing
Today’s Wall Street Journal has an article on page A 3 dealing with the government’s push to prosecute public sector criminal activity.   Interestingly the article did not mention the government’s actions to curtail the misconduct in the health care industry.    I was informed yesterday that certain clout heavy individuals with strong ties to Chicago are being questioned by the FBI and grand juries.    These individuals have ties to the miscreants who are the subject matter of a number of citizen complaints lodged with the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary commission.    [Mr. Jerome Larkin the administrator in my opinion has been a key player in the cover-up.    We have been making inquiries to ascertain if Mr. Larkin has any direct or indirect relationship to the Larkin Community Hospital situation *****]
The problem that we face is not legislative – it is enforcement.
Ms. Phelan has a book coming out that details a truly horrific ‘elder cleansing’ situation that is a wake-up call.    My understanding is that it will expose chapter and verse some of the infamous activities of the California political royalty and their activities in the War against the Elderly and Disabled.     In Illinois Ms. Gloria Sykes is using her journalistic skills to expose how her mother was railroaded into a guardianship and the lengths that Mr. Larkin, two guardian ad litem and a well connected attorney went in their efforts ******.      Mr. John Wyman, who is reputed to be just an ordinary citizen caught up in this problem, has a book out detailing the railroading of his mother into an abusive guardianship and the ****.
In Court records there is detailed many infamous events that curl should ‘curl the hair’ on your head.    All a parallel to the problem discussed in your e-mail.    We have infuriated Mr. Larkin and those who act with him in seeking to surpress mention of the infamy that is being promulgated by a few corrupt lawyers with political connections.     (Take a look at the Appendix that I have filed in the Supreme Court of Illinois.    The first item on the agenda is a letter from  Guardian ad Litem Cynthia Farenga to an attorney at the IARDC.    This letter is a ‘smoking gun!’    It demonstrates and exposes the lengths that the miscreants will go to keep their War on the Elderly and the Disabled secret.
As lawyers Larkin, Stern, Farenga, Schmiedel et al are well aware of the Rule of Law set forth by the Supreme Court of the United States – yet they ignore it as do many in the Judicial community.    For your edification the following was written for a recent filing.    It will explain the law.
It is axiomatic that it is:
a basic First Amendment principle that “freedom of speech prohibits the government from telling people what they must say.” Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc., 547 U.S. 47, 61, 126 S.Ct. 1297, 164 L.Ed.2d 156 (2006) (citing West Virginia State Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642, 63 S.Ct. 1178, 87 L.Ed. 1628 (1943), and Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705, 717, 97 S.Ct. 1428, 51 L.Ed.2d 752 (1977)). “At the heart of the First Amendment lies the principle that each person should decide for himself or herself the ideas and beliefs deserving of expression, consideration, and adherence.” Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622, 641, 114 S.Ct. 2445, 129 L.Ed.2d 497 (1994); see Knox v. Service Employees, 567 U.S. ––––, –––– – ––––, 132 S.Ct. 2277, 2288, 183 L.Ed.2d 281 (2012) (“The government may not … compel the endorsement of ideas that it approves.”). Were it enacted as a direct regulation of speech, the Policy Requirement would plainly violate the First Amendment. The question is whether the Government may nonetheless impose that requirement as a condition on the receipt of federal funds.    Agency for Int’l Dev. v. Alliance for Open Soc’y Int’l, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2321, 2327, 186 L. Ed. 2d 398 (2013)
Herein the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission and the Illinois Supreme Court has  not honored the Rule of Law as set out in the cases  United States v. Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. 2537, 183 L. Ed. 2d 574 (2012), Brown v. Entm’t Merchants Ass’n, 131 S. Ct. 2729, 180 L. Ed. 2d 708 (2011), Ashcroft v. Am. Civil Liberties Union, 542 U.S. 656, 124 S. Ct. 2783, 159 L. Ed. 2d 690 (2004), Snyder v. Phelps, 131 S. Ct. 1207, 179 L. Ed. 2d 172 (2011), Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 558 U.S. 310, 130 S. Ct. 876, 175 L. Ed. 2d 753 (2010).     These cases point out that as to content related speech (political speech) there is no power or jurisdiction in the State Courts to interfere, impede, or otherwise hinder the free expression of ideas, including unpopular ideas.
In the Recent case of United States vs. Alvarez (citation omitted) the Supreme Court of the United States stated:
“[A]s a general matter, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.” Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 535 U.S. 564, 573, 122 S.Ct. 1700, 152 L.Ed.2d 771 (2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). As a result, *2544 the Constitution “demands that content-based restrictions on speech be presumed invalid … and that the Government bear the burden of showing their constitutionality.” Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 542 U.S. 656, 660, 124 S.Ct. 2783, 159 L.Ed.2d 690 (2004)”.  United States v. Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. 2537, 2543-44, 183 L. Ed. 2d 574 (2012)
Unpopular and universally condemned expressions of speech are not exception to the principle
“***** government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.” Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 535 U.S. 564, 573, 122 S.Ct. 1700, 152 L.Ed.2d 771 (2002)  Brown v. Entm’t Merchants Ass’n, 131 S. Ct. 2729, 2733, 180 L. Ed. 2d 708 (2011)
Thus selling violent video games to children was an is protected by the First Amendment.  Indeed speech depicting cruelty to animals was ruled protected, to wit:
“The First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech does not extend only to categories of speech that survive an ad hoc balancing of relative social costs and benefits. The First Amendment itself reflects a judgment by the American people that the benefits of its restrictions on the Government outweigh the costs. Our Constitution forecloses any attempt to revise that judgment simply on the basis that some speech is not worth it. The Constitution is not a document “prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 178, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803)”.  United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460, 470, 130 S. Ct. 1577, 1585, 176 L. Ed. 2d 435 (2010)
Indeed,  specifically directed prohibitions on First Amendment Rights such as are being applied to the instant respondent in these proceedings are totally in contravention of the core values of America and the Supreme Court mandate of Synder vs Phelps  131 S.Ct. 1207, 179 L.Ed.2d 17279  Replete in the averments of the IARDC and its hearing and review panel is the proposition that the respondent was critical of certain judges in his private conversations and in communications with law enforcement.  As judges in Illinois are elected, it is respectfully submitted that such a prohibition even if not protected by the First Amendment  is ‘overbroad’
“In the First Amendment context, however, this Court recognizes “a second type of facial challenge,” whereby a law may be invalidated as overbroad if “a substantial number of its applications are unconstitutional, judged in relation to the statute’s plainly legitimate sweep.” Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442, 449, n. 6, 128 S.Ct. 1184, 170 L.Ed.2d 151 (2008)”  United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460, 473, 130 S. Ct. 1577, 1587, 176 L. Ed. 2d 435 (2010)
In the instant case the transcripts of Judge Connor’s redirect testimony and her statement on August 31, 2009 cannot be ignored.  (These documents are attached to this petition).  It should be noted that
“Courts, too, are bound by the First Amendment. “  Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 558 U.S. 310, 326, 130 S. Ct. 876, 891, 175 L. Ed. 2d 753 (2010)[1]
In Citizens United in an analogous circumstance the  Supreme Court remarked:
“The ongoing chill upon speech that is beyond all doubt protected makes it necessary in this case to invoke the earlier precedents that a statute which chills speech can and must be invalidated where its facial invalidity has been demonstrated.  **********
“Speech is an essential mechanism of democracy, for it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people. See Buckley, supra, at 14–15, 96 S.Ct. 612 (“In a republic where the people are sovereign, the ability of the citizenry to make informed choices among candidates for office is essential”). The right of citizens to inquire, to hear, to speak, and to use information to reach consensus is a precondition to enlightened self-government and a necessary means to protect it. The First Amendment “ ‘has its fullest and most urgent application’ to speech uttered during a campaign for political office.” *340 Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Central Comm., 489 U.S. 214, 223, 109 S.Ct. 1013, 103 L.Ed.2d 271 (1989) (quoting Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U.S. 265, 272, 91 S.Ct. 621, 28 L.Ed.2d 35 (1971)); see Buckley, supra, at 14, 96 S.Ct. 612 (“Discussion of public issues and debate on the qualifications of candidates are integral to the operation of the system of government established by our Constitution”).”  ********
“Political speech is “indispensable to decision making in a democracy, and this is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation rather than an individual.” Bellotti, 435 U.S., at 777, 98 S.Ct. 1407 (footnote omitted); see ibid. (the worth of speech “does not depend upon the identity of its source, whether corporation, association, union, or individual”); Buckley, 424 U.S., at 48–49, 96 S.Ct. 612 (“[T]he concept that government may restrict the speech of some elements of our society in order to enhance *350 the relative voice of others is wholly foreign to the First Amendment”); Automobile Workers, 352 U.S., at 597, 77 S.Ct. 529 (Douglas, J., dissenting); CIO, 335 U.S., at 154–155, 68 S.Ct. 1349 (Rutledge, J., concurring in result).”  Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 558 U.S. 310, 349-50, 130 S. Ct. 876, 904, 175 L. Ed. 2d 753 (2010)
Thus, as the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission and the Illinois Supreme Court are deemed to have knowledge of the Rule of Law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States the act of suspending Ditkowsky for making whatever statements he may have made or is accused of making is ultra vires.    Speech is absolutely protected and the governmental attempt to either deprive a citizen of his rights, privileges or immunities to speak out is a patent violation the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.  “the First Amendment does not permit the State to sacrifice speech for efficiency.” Riley v. National Federation of Blind of N. C., Inc., “   487 U.S. 781, 795, 108 S.Ct. 2667, 101 L.Ed.2d 669 (1988).  Arizona Free Enter. Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett, 131 S. Ct. 2806, 2824, 180 L. Ed. 2d 664 (2011)
Ken Ditkowsky


Making the front page of! Crushing US internal dissent.

Dear Readers;

Take a look at the article below and it is my understanding that these articles receive about a quarter million views or more from around the world!


And for more great articles that speak freely about the TRUTH, see


From Gloria Sykes today–the IARDC decision against Ken Ditkowsky was wrong and not supported by the facts

Dear Ken,

I am most saddened by how the IARDC has treated you and the ISC has sanctioned such treatment: when I saw my Mother on the 22nd of June, 2013, I told her you too were trying to help her.  As you know, she contacted me I believe in Feb. 2010 and begged me to “find” you and “hire” you to “save” her life.  The conversation is stoned in my memory: if you need money to pay (attorney), my Mother told me, take it from my mattress. The next day the mattress was gone and so was the at least $20,000 cash (mostly $100 bills).  You are correct that there is a pack of attorneys who parade around on the 18th floor empowered by a few judges who do what needs to be done to protect them.  For at least 4 years I have learned a lot about this Cottage Industry of Attorneys, complete with Guardians Ad Litem, who use the Probate Division to launder money.  It’s easier than you have described.  
As you know every year the court appointed guardian must provide the court with an inventory of the Ward’s assets.  In the Sykes case, Carolyn Toerpe would claim, for example, she paid the property taxes, insurance and mortgage on Mother’s home.  I would object and provide the Court good evidence that the taxes, insurance and mortgage was not paid (in this case, mother’s home was put into foreclosure).  The amount of money equaled at least $18,000.  Judge Stuart role plays so the record gives the impression she gives a damn, but after putting Toerpe under oath and asking a series of question to her, she would then allow GAL Stern to ask questions too.  Satisfied that Toerpe paid the mortgage, property taxes and insurance on the home, approves the inventory: no proof of payments are required.
Another example is medical expenses.  My mother has very good insurance with Blue Cross Blue Shield and of course Medicare.  However, one year Toerpe inventories medical and medication expenses totaling at leas $10,000.  I objected, providing the court proof that mother has insurance coverage for all of the medical, dental, and pharmaceutical expenses.  Again, the show goes on: Judge Stuart places Toerpe under oath asks a few questions then Adam Stern (GAL) asks a few questions, and the inventory is approved.  Two years ago Toerpe got approved $5000 to pay for dental and new partials for my mother and yet when I saw her on June 22, 2013, her teeth were rotting and she had no front teeth and could not chew.  The loss of weight and rotting teeth evidence no new partials were purchased and the money Toerpe claimed when for my mother’s dental care, was not spent on mother’s health.  Mother has had pyorrhea for most of her life and she had great dental care and healthy teeth until she was forced under Toerpe’s care.
This is how the money is laundered under the nose of the Judges and with the Court’s rubber stamp.  One last fact.  My mother’s home was worth at least $425,000: Toerpe sold it for cash for $238,000. Not one penny was inventoried. The home and mother’s assets were a part of a Living Revocable Trust — 
Stern, Farenga and Schmiedel admitted under oath that they were paid attorney fees from mother’s assets: Stern $15,000: Farenga $15,000 and Schmiedel $12,000 with Schmiedel testifying that mother owes him and the law-firm of Fischel and Kahn where he is associated yet another over $200,000 (the exact amount he stole from my medical funds/bankruptcy estate from the Lumberman’s settlement).  The law of the Probate is that the attorneys and GAL’s must file fee petitions within 90 days — there has never been any fee petitions filed — until now.  Since the Court converted all of my assets to my bankruptcy estate into the possession of Toerpe and granted Stern, Farenga and Schmiedel to file fee petitions *****
So for the sake of this email, let’s do the math. In plain sight, at least $500,000 cash has been laundered through the Probate case of In Re. the Estate of Mary G. Sykes.  Half of it is my money!  Mother had gold and silver coins in the US Bank safe box, but I had at least $350,000 of my own coins stored in the safe box.  Mother had her will and new trust in the box with a laundry list of who got what?  Toerpe did not inherit any of the coins from Daddy or All Bibby — Al Bibby gave me all of his coins.  Daddy left his to Mother and me and Mom left me as the sole beneficiary to the valuables in the box.
But the Probate Court is able to live above the Law and so the Cottage Industry of Probate attorneys and guardian ad litem’s are empowered to launder the estates of the elderly, disabled and all people, such as myself, who dare to stand up and say, “No. You can’t do this”.
I don’t mean to sound so cavalier, Ken, but the end game is always the same in these situations, and I need to stay focused on my next move(s): the end game being that once Stern, Schmiedel, Farenga, and Toerpe have all of Mother’s money (which they already do) and all of my money and assets, which they almost do, then they will either over medicate or suffocate my mother.  Although my mother has her last resting place paid for at All Saints Cemetary in Morton Grove, I am certain Toerpe will cremate her, sell mother’s site (will get at least $15000) and bury mother’s ashes next to her mother (grandma) where there is a lot available. This was of course not my mother’s wishes, but thus far, none of my mother’s advance directives have been acknowledged — and clearly it was my mother’s wish, desire, and intent to have an order of protection placed on Toerpe which would have prevented Toerpe from doing all that she had done.
I imagine Ken that had Schmiedel, Stern, and Farenga won the sanction claim against you (the appeal) they would have been each many thousands of dollars happier — and, would have done to you to other attorneys who tried to step in and help the elderly and disabled. That said, now the IARDC and the ISC has sent a clear and loud message to any attorney who would do the right thing, to not accept a probate case where the alleged disabled person has wealth.  It was a sad day for me, and I know my mother, to learn that you have been suspended from practicing law — but it’s a sadder day for all of the people of Illinois knowing that we have no protections from a highly active and aggressive cottage industry of attorneys who are empowered by the IARDC, ISC and of course the Probate Judges who wish to partake in the laundering of the well-earned assets/money of the elderly and disabled.
Gloria Jean Sykes 
Bon Ami Productions, Inc. 
 773-751-1310 (fax)
855-376-0040 (business)


From Ken Ditkowsky — Still fighting for Mary G Sykes’s human and civil rights

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Mar 27, 2014 10:48 AM
To: Eric Holder , Marty Prehn , “” , matt senator kirk
Cc: Tim NASGA , NASGA , Diane Nash , probate sharks , Jo Anne M Denison , Cook County States Attorney , “” , Cook Sheriff , Harry Heckert , j ditkowsky , GLORIA SYKES

To:  Attorney General Holder
Dear General Holder,
A friend referred me to the following:
(2) Money laundering and related financial crime.–The term “money laundering and related financial crime”–
(A) means the movement of illicit cash or cash equivalent proceeds into, out of, or through the United States, or into, out of, or through United States financial institutions, as defined in section 5312 of title 31, United States Code; or
(B) has the meaning given that term (or the term used for an equivalent offense) under State and local criminal statutes pertaining to the movement of illicit cash or cash equivalent proceeds.  31 U.S.C.A. § 5340 (West)
Reviewing the abusive guardianship cases across the United States a common pattern exists.
1) a senior citizen is railroaded into a guardianship.    In our posterboard case, it is Mary Sykes.   The provisions of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 1 et seq.  have been ignored in the effort to obtain control over the body and the property of the victim.    It should noted that mostly seniors with substantial assets are targeted.
2) a senior citizen is stripped of his/her assets.     These funds disappear into the ‘cloud!”      The funds obtained by the perpetrators are clearly illicit.    Except for Mr. Jerome Larkin and the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission few public officials have been know to defend the people (in this case attorneys) who act either for themselves or associates to garner control over the funds of the elderly and thereby either enrich themselves of others.    In the Sykes case over a million dollars in collectibles (gold coins) was taken from a safety deposit box and never inventoried.
3) Obviously these illicit funds are moved – in the case of the elder cleansing victim the movement is to the pockets of the favored.
Thus, the definition is met.     General Holder = Do you agree?
Do you agree the RICO statute concept applies?     Are the proceeds obtained by the abusive guardianship and the corrupt courts such illicit funds so as to be mony laundering?      Do you agree that the usurpers have to address the Federal and State Income tax laws – the breach of fiduciary relationship is a taxable event – but forfeitures (civil constructive trusts) etc.    Pursuant to 18 USCA 371 a broad brush is appropriate as the only way for a Democratic Society to win the War on the Elderly and the Disabled is to make it pecuniarily unattractive for the bad acting guardians, judicial officials and those who aid and abet them in the struggle.
Getting down to specifics.    1.5 million dollars was exhausted in a few short month in the Alice Gore estate.    (We have no valuation on the gold fillings in her teeth!).  Someone owes to the United States of America taxes and penalties on those funds.   Somehow these illicit funds were translated in an expensive home for ****, etc.   According to the definition this is money laundering.   The culpable people engaged are:  1) the plenary guardian, 2) the guardian ad litem, 3) the judge who assisted the enterprise by entering orders that she knew or should have know were reasonably calculated to separate the family of Alice Gore from Alice Gore.    In addition the IARDC people who fended off Ms. Gore’s family’s complaints are part and parcel of the scheme.     A similar situation occurred in the Sykes case.    This time Mr. Larkin and the IARDC were more overt ****
I do not know if the $60,000 Federal Tax Lien placed on Adam Stern relates to his activities in the War on the Elderly and the disabled, but it that were to be related let me thank you on behalf of the Sykes family, the Community in which Mary Sykes resided before she was taken hostage for this positive step.
The Congress and the Legislature have provided the tools to address this official corruption – What we need now is an Honest intelligent complete and comprehensive investigation by a Grand Jury of the Alice Gore/Mary Sykes/ Tyler, et al Estates.
Justice for the elderly is wasted when it comes after death!
Ken Ditkowsky

From Lanre Amu–his Supreme Court Brief

Dear Readers;

Please take a look at the following:

Mr. Lanre Amu did a great job on his brief to the SCOI, and in his brief he mentions “First Amendment” rights about 20 times and he also carefully lays out the facts of why he is alleging corruption against 5 judges.  He is also following my advice to investigate, investigate, investigate and turn it all over to the authorities.

Now, the obvious problem with all of this, if the ARDC is limiting one’s right to evidence (Mr. Amu finally mentions the fact he served notices for the depositions of the 5 judges and his Notices of Deposition were all quashed.  Then he served 5 trial subpoenas and those were all quashed), then what’s a poor black immigrant to do?

In my case, I took the depositions of Gloria Sykes, Scott Evans, Kathie Bakken and Yolanda Bakken. The IARDC failed to show up and just claimed the Notices “weren’t good enough”.  I offered they could come back and cross examine, but they refused.  Nonetheless, they continued to claim “discovery violation” to the Tribunal.  To add more insanity to their behavior, they repeatedly wanted to strike the depositions, but then they used them at trial!  MPD anyone?

There are many similarities.

Now all that Mr. Amu has to do is cite the 5 major cases that are in his favor with respect to First Amendment rights and he will be there:  Peel/Ibenez (advertising credentials on letterhead okay), Citizens United (strict scrutiny standard for curtailing political speech), Loving v. IRS (IRS has no jurisdiction/authority to regulate), Brown Entertainment (Violent video games unrated okay), Gentile (statements made during press conference by attorney protected by First Amendment)

Optional, excellent cases: Alvarez (false Medals of Valor protected by the First Amendment); Virginia Bar Assn v. Hunter (truthful statements regarding attorney’s criminal law blog cases protected by First Amendment), Karavidas v. IARDC (attorneys private activities not within authority of ARDC to discipline), etc.

The only thing Mr. Amu needs is a few cases and he will be there.

During my trial, the ARDC cited and gave me copies of their cases which were not appealed to the SCOI or SCOTUS.  On the otherhand, we did not need any case copies because everyone should be aware (esp. if they are a lawyer), of the First Amendment case which have issued from SCOI and SCOTUS.  These should be famous cases and all lawyers should be familiar with them.

Only a lawyer has the unique ability to spot when law, procedure and case law is not being followed in the courtroom.  To report these activities promptly and substantially accurately protects the public and other lawyers from being sandbagged by miscreant behavior in a court room.

We have two very important rights in this country.  The first is access to free, open and democratic courtrooms, the second (and esp. when that first right fails), is access to a free, open and democratic media.

And being in the media is no piece of cake.  But the reality is, certain individuals, by their own actions foist themselves into the media and public light.  Certainly a judge foists themself into the public light and especially those that are elected.  Next, are the behavior of attorneys in the courtroom.  There has been plenty of negative publicity about many, many lawyers in the courtroom in highly visible cases.

When one starts to judge speech in a courtroom, as Atty. Nejla Lane said during my ARDC trial, the court automatically becomes biased in favor of one side of the story.  At that point, the court automatically loses its credibility as an impartial, blind judge of facts as applied to law.  Accordingly, by its very nature, speech is nearly impossible to regulate.

Take a look at the following case which many are urging Mr. Brewington to take his case to the Supreme Court of Indiana and I hope that he does:,15

In this case, Mr. Brewington hired a child evaluator (psychologist) and agreed to have him evaluate his family situation during a custody battle.  When Mr. Brewington didn’t like the report, he then sent the doctor many communications letting the doc know in no uncertain terms what Brewington felt regarding the report and he created a scathing blog.  But he did not threaten the doctor with physical harm or any crime against person or property.

The trial court found Brewington committed the crime of “intimidation” with “threats” based upon the following definition of “threat”:

The (Indiana) General Assembly has defined a “threat” as:

an expression, by words or action, of an intention to:

(1) unlawfully injure the person threatened or another person, or damage property;

(2) unlawfully subject a person to physical confinement or restraint;

(3) commit a crime;

(4) unlawfully withhold official action, or cause such withholding;

(5) unlawfully withhold testimony or information with respect to another person’s legal claim or defense, except for a reasonable claim for witness fees or expenses;

(6) expose the person threatened to hatred, contempt, disgrace, or ridicule;

(7) falsely harm the credit or business reputation of the person threatened; or

(8) cause the evacuation of a dwelling, a building, another structure, or a vehicle.

Ind.Code § 35-45-2-1(c). Whether conduct amounts to a threat is an objective question of fact for the jury to decide. Owens v. State, 659 N.E.2d 466, 474 (Ind. 1995).

Now, I don’t have a problem with the above, except no. 6.  No. 6 is purely criminalizing trash talk and it’s completely subjective.  The last sentence regarding what amount to a threat which can possibly be objective is purely outrageous.  There is absolutely nothing about speech that is “objective”.  Objective is a litmus test, evaluating speech is a matter of preference, bias and prejudice.  To deny that is to engage in day dreaming.

So, poor Mr. Brewster let the doctor know he was unhappy and demanded the doctor change or retract the report.  That was the basis for an “obstruction of justice” count.  It was opined that a scathing blog and string of faxes and letters would prevent the poor doc from coming to court and taking the witness stand.

Let’s go back and read in between the lines here.  We know that probate and divorce courts have their “go to doctors” where you simply get the opinion you want based upon the name of the doc.  Most of the time, therefore, the courts keep “private” or “proprietary” lists.  Even the New Mexico state legislature has had problems with court connected psychologists, such that, in 1995 they were able to pass a bill in the senate that they dress like wizards prior to testifying (true story, check it out):

the bill stated:

When a psychologist or psychiatrist testifies during a defendant’s competency hearing, the psychologist or psychiatrist shall wear a cone-shaped hat that is not less than two feet tall. The surface of the hat shall be imprinted with stars and lightning bolts. Additionally, a psychologist or psychiatrist shall be required to don a white beard that is not less than 18 inches in length, and shall punctuate crucial elements of his testimony by stabbing the air with a wand. Whenever a psychologist or psychiatrist provides expert testimony regarding a defendant’s competency, the bailiff shall contemporaneously dim the courtroom lights and administer two strikes to a Chinese gong…

Perhaps Mr. Brewington should have repeated this story in opening argument or closing.

Mr. Brewington’s story is indeed troubling. Let’s hope he appeals. With respect to emails and faxes, I know where the block feature is, where the delete key is and once in a while I might use those, but most of the time, I ignore/do not read trash talk and tell the sender they are wasting their time. That’s my constitutional right.

For an upbeat story on Free Speech rights, try this case from the Indiana Supreme Court where an apparently drunken woman told the nice police officer in a loud voice where to go and what to do.  The Indiana Supreme Court said the speech was political and protected by the First Amendment:

Price v. Indiana

The court upheld the drunken woman charge but struck down the other charges of resisting arrest and obstructing justice for her speech.  Apparently she said “F U, I didn’t do anything wrong.”  I wonder if the Indiana Supreme court knew that if you said that statement was in and of itself obstructing justice and disorderly conduct, the Indiana prisons would soon be full to the busting point!  Isn’t that what everyone says or at least thinks at the time of arrest?

This was a 1993 case and I wonder if free speech rights are simply eroding.

Mr Amu’s recent brief can be found here:

But my hero right now is Indiana’s first lady of loud, drunken, obnoxious speech, Ms. Colleen Price.  “F U, I didn’t do anything wrong” as she was being arrested.

You go, girl.