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.

From a probate victim writing a book, should we mince words?

Dear Readers;

I had a probate victim write me to day and ask the ultimate question–should I mince words.  She opined no one would believe her story, and many probate victims ask if they should write their stories as works of fiction.

My answer.  Heck no!  If you are indeed a probate victim, believe it or not, your story is a precious gift, and you must tell it, if you are a writer or if you know a writer.

And of course, Ken and I must ask ourselves constantly in light of threats from the ARDC, certain attorneys and court, that we must not reveal publicly some shameful behavior we have observed in and out of the courtroom, and we should not tell our truths as we see it, putting aside the Bill of Rights and our First Amendment rights to reveal this insidious evil–the trashing of civil rights and human rights of disableds.

But I always, always ask the Divine Ones for the answer–not the confused, lonely and corrupted souls on this earth about where I need to go and what I need to say, knowing I can have the protection of 1,000 angels, something NOT available to them who hide in fear chasing greed and money.

See my answer to her below.


Dear Friend;

You asked if you should change your book so that it is 1) more believable; 2) more politically correct; 3) less harsh and not your true feelings.  My answer to you is no, no, no.  You must speak your truth and no one else’s. It does no one any good for you to not speak up.  I believe there is a plan and purpose for everything.  You defeat the purpose and plan when you do not go where your heart tells you to go and say what your heart tells you to say, honestly and completely.  It is not up to you to mince your truth because you are afraid, you think the recipient might not take it so well, etc.  You have to put those fears aside and still speak your truth.  It is your truth and not someone else’s.  No one is here to judge you, so let that one go.  The righteous will stand by you and those that are still learning but cannot yet comprehend or stand the truth, will fall away.  You will see.  Your only job is to go and deliver and go and speak out.

 Review the Sarah Barrielles song on this point.

lyrics are at

what does Ms. Sarah have to say on these points?

You can be amazing
You can turn a phrase….. you can start speaking up
Nothing’s gonna hurt you…..(but)
Kept on the inside and no sunlight
Sometimes the shadow wins

There are other songs on this point, but she is right.  Don’t hold it in, get it out.  Speak your truth, your justice–what you need to say.  The only danger is in not speaking up and out.  Not speaking your truth and holding it in, clogs up your throat chakra!
But I wonder what would happen if you

Say what you wanna say
And let the words fall out
Honestly I wanna see you be brave

the people that don’t speak out and don’t say what needs to be said, are all too common.  There are millions of them. But those that are the best will speak out against injustice, evil and greed.

Everybody’s been there, everybody’s been stared down
By the enemy
Fallen for the fear and done some disappearing
Don’t run, stop holding your tongue

and we’ve all done it.  we’ve all walked away when we should have said something, done something, written something.  But you can make up that karma today.  Today is a new day to do something about this.
Maybe there’s a way out of the cage where you live
Maybe one of these days you can let the light in
Show me how big your brave is

And this song goes on with more truths and more sustenance for the soul, most notably:

And since your history of silence
Won’t do you any good
Did you think it would?
Let your words be anything but empty
Why don’t you tell them the truth?

I don’t think I could have said it better.  I know too many probate victims, downtrodden, fearful, maligned, beaten up, abused–who will no longer speak up and out.

Time to stop that nonsense.

On the days when you cannot speak out, publish on a blog what you want to say, please listen to the song Brave by Sarah Bareilles.  She packs a whole lot of wisdom into one 3 minute song.

(they actually play this in the church where I go)

You have been given  a great gift of a life and karma that no one else has.  You survived it.  It’s your experience and only you own it.

Reach in your heart and then write what your heart tells you.  It is actually your obligation to deliver your truth.  It is not up to you to figure out how the recipient takes it or if they like it, believe it or will stand up and support your need for righteousness.

If you write so that you are not speaking your truth, then you haven’t learned this lesson and there will be more lessons.

You have been given a precious and valuable gift, whether you know it or not.  Now you have to tell your truth.

I will for sure promote your book and anyone else’s that tells these stories properly, with the unvarnished truth.

Thank you for all you do for the probate victims.

I wish you many blessings, peace and love.


Copyright notice:  the above lyrics are used based upon a license found at: which allows for use of Sony/ATV lyrics for personal/noncommercial use on blogs and in other manners.  This is a non-commercial blog which is not sold or otherwise distributed.

From Michael Gearhart–families need our help

Dear Readers;

Apparently too many courts are denying or limiting visitation even when a parent has not been declared unfit.  The current standard is no standard at all–best interests of the child and this take precedence even where the judge has no reports on the family or child, s/he has just a few pleadings in front of him or her and then they say “no contact” or “no visitation”.  And that’s with no notice, no hearing and no findings of fact!

The below bill will remedy that, allow all parents to claim at least 35% of parenting time, UNLESS they are proved unfit and level the playing field–without divorce attorneys arguing away at $300 to $400 per hous.

Please support this bill and thanks so much to Atty Gearheart for doing this.



From: AirborneNurse []
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 7:15 AM
Subject: Urgent HB 5425…read now…print off and ACT!!!


It’s 4th and Goal  and HB 5425 is on the 1 yard line in the Super Bowl of Democracy.   Will you help carry HB 5425 across the goal line to righteous victory???  The children of Illinois await your answer.  Wednesday, at the Capitol, we had a wonderful 1.5 hour press conference with many Illinois television markets enthusiastically covering the HB 5425 Shared Parenting story(finally!!!).


( )


But the bigger news is that, through dogged determination, we finally met face to face with Rep. Elaine Nekritz and she said she would call the bill for a vote on Monday, March 24th at the 3pm meeting.


We need just 9 yes votes out of 16 votes to pass HB 5425 to a full house vote.  That 16 member vote will no doubt be taken on Monday late afternoon.


Number 1: Call all 16 members(see below) of the Illinois House Judiciary Committee and ask them to vote yes on HB 5425 at Monday’s(March 24th) hearing.  If you cannot call all the members, please concentrate on the Democrat members because they are in the majority.  Democrat Chairwoman Rep. Elaine Nekritz is against HB 5425 and she wields majority influence over the Judiciary Committee.  Ask all representatives or their secretaries to fill out the yellow sheet Co- Sponsor form supporting HB 5425.  Inform them that we have 16 co-sponsors listed already so there’s no reason not to be a co-sponsor now.  Call today and even all day Monday.   Report back all comments, good, bad or in-between to me at


Number 2:  Come to the Capitol Monday!!!  Call in sick(of injustice), take a personal day, bring family, friends and kids….EVERYONE!!!   Hitch hike if you have to, ride a wheel chair in if you have to, but come and get the democracy you’ve longed for.  Many kids are on Spring Break – bring the kids.  Make it a family Democracy Project.  Let them make signs to hold up during the vote.  Signs that say “HB 5425 Vote Yes.”   If your kids are in school Monday, know this – the best educational experience for kids in the state is at the Capitol Monday(Judiciary Hearing Mar 24 2014 3:00PM Stratton Building Room C-1 Springfield, IL).


So, you are the quarterback at the Super Bowl and if you choose to sit on the sidelines, Illinois children will continue to suffer with no assurance that they could be the next victim of the Illinois Family Law Business, a 50 billion dollar a year business.  HB 5425 is so close to the most critical victory of getting passed the House Judiciary Committee.   We can win – but ONLY if you get in the game right now!


Click on below for full list of Illinois House Judiciary Committee members. There are 6 Republicans, 10 Democrats and Rep. Welch has already signed on has a co-sponsor.   Make the calls(respectfully, but insistent) TODAY!!!




NJ attorneys arrested for elder thefts–from Rosanna Miller

Rosanna Miller asserts this is proof that this is going on in and out of probate courts, right under everyone’s noses.
But she wonders how come the NJ Attorney General is prosecuting these crimes, while hundreds of thousands are missing from her own father and mother’s estate and no one seems to care.

In Illinois, we seem to have the same sort of problem with $1 million missing in Sykes, $9 million Drabik, $1.5 million Gore.  It’s just missing from the estates. And while many are voiciferous in complaining about all this money, nothing ever seems to get done–other than filing complaints against two attorneys asking where the money is or why no subpoenas were served on those involved.

And while it is great that NJ has done something about all those missing funds, still if you read the article carefully, the crimes were not just for a few months, but extended over about 6 years.  How many faxes, emails and letters had to be sent to the AIG in NJ for this type of investigation and action?  The article does not say.

So kudos to NJ and let’s home that there is some justice that is being assembled in Illinois for all our suffering probate victim families–Sykes, Gore, Drabik, etc.  The families that were ruined and traumatized by miscreants in the court.



Blogging in probate court today and for Gloria

Dear Readers;

Today was a very sad day.  First of all, Gloria lost her $202k or whatever she had left over from her Lumberman’s suit to fix her home and for her medical care for her cancer–which is what the money was to be used for.  No one mentioned that Gloria is a cancer survivor from her mold in her home or she needs money. She does need money.  She is now penniless.  You will see my blogging below.  Next we still have the recurring issue of the bailiffs in probate court interfering with my constitutional right to blog and  be part of a free press in an open and democratic society. Worse of all, there is no written rule on prohibiting blogging.  I have a blogging client.  She has asked me to court watch and to blog.  I see nothing wrong with that.  Today, in court, even Judge Stuart agreed with that!  Hurrah and kudos to Judge Stuart for doing the right thing.  If you have someone blogging and posting then people that can’t be there or people too old or infirm to be there (Kathie and Yolanda) can get the low down right away.  I think they deserve that, don’t you?

Alas and alak, the deputies argued with me and even the judge.  A sad day for the US constitution and free speech and a free press.

Without that–our US constitution is lost.

Read on and please send your comments and requests for blogging and free speech to Presiding Judge Timothy Evans and Sherif Dart.


Judge Stuart not here yet.  It is 2 pm.

PS is asked by the clerk for any paperwork.  They are getting the judge.  PS says it’s been done, he was handing something up.  I’ll get a copy.  It is on judge stuart’s chair.  Clerk says she does not have the file.  Has not seen it in a while and it is down in files room.   She has a smaller, thinner file for court.

Sykes is only one at 2 pm.  No bailiffs to tell me to shut off the computer.

Judge Stuart appears and sits at bench.

Cynthia Farenga, Adam Stern and Peter Schmeidel enter their appearances.  Ms. Susan Overby says she is there on behalf of Chase.  (I wonder if with the $202k they decide to take 6016 out of foreclosure?)

PS says he is now seeking a ruling on motion to obtain ruling on apportionment.

PS received an email that Gloria Sykes cannot be here today and she was never told about Mar 18, 2014 being to apportion the remaining funds. PS  I told her a few days ago that’s not true GS was never informed of the date for the apportionment of Gloria’s funds, and PS shows JS that he has a copy of email from January and a copy of an order set for today.  Judge reads the order into the record and also the email.

JS notes for the record it is the same as the official copy and the order reads reset to Jan 16, then Mar 18.  All matters schedule for jan 16 to be done on mar 18, including a decision on the apportionment of funds and a copy to….gloria sykes.

AS notes:
Joanne Denison is present.  And typing on her computer.  It will not take place of official reecord, and making a note of it.  (They did not take my computer away, THANK YOU JUDGE STUART)

PS – begins to note for the record orders that have been entered.  An appeal of some order gloria filed– she did make an appeal of it and that was dismissed. This appeal dismissed last week by the court of appeals involved her motion to oppose the apportionment of her funds.  One appeal where they found this court had jurisdiction, appeal 131493–was denied.  The appeal of an order re the apportionment agreement– to set it aside was also denied by the Court of Appeals.  Another Motion for Clarification was set aside.

PS notes that It looks as if Judge Epstein did the last appeal and he has been on all of the dismissals that have occurred.  Appeal was dismissed with prejudice on jurisdiction.  Based upon law of case June 27 2013.  To your knowledge, is there anything else pending.  It’s interesting the order says “law of the case” because no one seems to know or mention what that means.  Law of the case is where a matter is not mentioned on appeal and then it is waived and becomes “law of the case.”  no one discusses that little omission.

There is another appeal.  The appeal has also been dismissed.  That is another appeal by Gloria Sykes and we have already filed a motion to dismiss this new appeal.  It again is challenging the court’s jurisdiction when that question has already bee decided on appeal.

PS then hands Judge Stuart an appellate brief by Gloria

On page 1 it indicates it is a table of contents. Under argument, a preliminary statement.  The TC exceeded its lawful jurisdiction. The brief says the TC is without jurisdiction. Under paragraph II it says that the TC lacks subject matter jurisdiction (I don’t agree.)

I’m not going to read all of it (JS) I want the record to reflect that is what indeed is here and then there is a listing of void orders and judgments.  We filed on mar 14 to dismiss and to refuse the appeals court to allow the appellate court to make further appeals.

PS wants to move forward.  He notes all issues on jurisdiction have been decided,5 dismissals and appeals, including jun 2013 and that was dismissed with prejudice.    I am asking the clerk of court that money needs to be disbursed to Carolyn for the care of Mary and to take care of the costs of litigation which has drained our resources.  The entire portion may be apportioned to Mary and to release the funds to Ms. Toerpe and to put it into a guardianship order that will be subject to the orders of this court.  (It is 2:20 and this only took 10 min. to get $202k)

CF: there is probably no end to this litigation.  Mary is 94 or 95 and the appellate court ruled favorably in dismissing Gloria’s many appeals attempts.  If Mary is to get any benefit from these funds it should be sooner than later.  AS says they were frozen in 2009 and Mary has not seen any benefit from those funds and Mary should get them all. (Except that no one talks about what to do with Gloria’s house which has been laid to waste).

Gloria has received a large percentage of the original funds.  The funds remaining have been frozen and were not available to care for Mary.

They are asking to get all the funds.

I only have PS pleadings before me, and the order was entered in January, and continued to today, and it’s at least 2 months. I have received nothing on this matter from Gloria.  (Gloria claims otherwise and will get us copies of what she filed)

Stuart will enter this order.  May 8, 2013, the property at 6016 n avondale, it was held in joint tenancy.  Information indicates Gloria might have paid for the home or not, it does not matter.  It does not matter what Mary put into the property.  It was in joint tenancy.  Each will share.  Lumberman’s suit concerned the 6016 n avondale home and denial of insurance.  At the end of that hearing the finding was in the favor of the plaintiffs and there was a $1.3 million settlement of which $707k was made available.  Gloria Sykes retained $505k. $272k is the remaining.  Only $202,719 remains (thought it was $272k).

2:25, 2 deputies come and say I cannot take notes on my laptop.  I told them the judge at the outset said it was okay.  They say there is an order and they have to tell me “no laptops.”  They say it does not matter what the judge said.  someone later tells me if i am blogging on a laptop and the supervisor comes by he will tell the deputies that they are not doing their jobs.  I’m wondering how all of these people passed the constitution test in 6th grade.  It’s not looking good for CPS.  I hope they were all catholic school kids and creationism was being taught that day or something.

I went out in the hall to get their names-Bowdry and Barnes. They said to go to 2600 to get a copy of the order.  Strangely enough, there is another guy in the hallway, vaguely familiar who does not identify himself, but agrees with the lady deputies.

I hurry to get back in the courtroom and start to take notes by hand.

Not more than 2 minutes later, I have the same ladies back telling me I cannot take notes.  I have to sit there and do nothing.  I ask if I can stay and observe, that the courtrooms are public.  They relent.  They are not happy I am there.  They ask if I am involved in the case (does that matter?) And I say no and they reply “why are you here” and I explain that I am an attorney with a client that is an interested party and she has requested that I blog and I run a blog.  They say I cannot blog.  Then they argue with me that I am not really representing a client if she is just a blogging client, like that and the US constitution is not important, well I am, and what I am doing is very important.

So, I’m trying to memorize everything.

Next thing that Carolyn says is that she has a neighbor take care of Mary 7 hours per day for 4 days.  She says that Mary has dementia and she is losing cognitive abilities and if you tell her to get dressed, put on clothing she does not do it.

I can’t recall much else.  I know at some point there was a discussion that Gloria should be banned from filing appeals, and should be banned from filing motions in the trial court. That makes sense now that they have her money.  However, it does seem she would have an argument that the court has exhausted her state remedies, there is no jurisdiction and now she can get into federal court and claim misconduct.  Looks like misconduct to me and a federal court judge might not take it all so leniently.

I next go to 2600 to talk to Timothy Evans’ staff.  He is the presiding judge.  Mr. Lou at the desk, starts out with this is a sheriff problem go to the sheriff.  I explain the deputies tell me there is an order from Judge Evans and if I want a copy of the order go there.  Ms. Maria, a staffer appears and starts to argue that there is no way the deputies argued with the judge over my blogging in court.  If the judge said it was okay, they were to respect her decision in the matter.  She finally gives me a copy of the order, attached hereto but sticks to her assertion that it must be me being frugal with the truth and not them.  You go, Ms. Maria!  I somehow can’t believe it’s the policy of Judge Evans to have his staff call the public liars, but you never know.  I can’t believe it’s good for votes or for when the bar calls about his behavior and the behavior of his staff.  Live and learn.

I then go to the 7th floor, I believe room 704 and talk to a nice lady there.  I explain the situation and ask her if she has any orders from Sheriff Dart regarding laptops and blogging. She says there is, but it’s in her handbook at home and she’s not supposed to give any one copies of that or what it says.  I ask for information for the public regarding alleged rules and she says there is nothing, but she thinks it’s up to the judge too.  At least she does not automatically call a member of the public a liar.

I think the matter is even.  Judge Evans has a copy of an order to hand to someone, but the staff automatically denies behavior they have not witnessed and calls the public a liar.  Sheriff Dart’s staff doesn’t call me a liar, but has nothing in writing regarding blogging in the court.

here is a link to the Order regarding electronic devices.  It says nothing about blogging.

Both have nothing in their orders regarding “blogging”.  Obsedian v. Cox in the 9th circuit has said bloggers have the same right as professional medial.

I personally believe I have a first amendment right to blog and so does the public.  I believe every time those deputies come over and tell me not to blog and screw up my blogging it hurts my writing and blogging endeavors which are my first amendment rights, and most of all, it hurts the probate victims.

I don’t go to court for no reason, I do it for the victims.  I have blogging clients and yes, those are real clients who need my services.

I will write to Judge Evans and Sheriff Dart again and ask them to please allow attorneys and the public to blog in court, it is indeed a constitutional violation and I hope they will issue clear orders to the public so that the deputies can have appropriate respect for the US Bill of Rights.  I really don’t understand the “General Administrative Order No. 2013-5″.  What ARE they afraid of?  A democratic society needs a free press and freedom speech, the right to petition and redress our government.

Justice McBride on the Sup. Ct. Of Illinois wonders why the average person, the common person does not use the court system.  First of all, the service fees are way too high.  Service should be done like the Federal Courts with an email or registered letter. If that is not responded to, then the defendant should have to pay the cost of personal service.  Second, the filing fees are way too high.  Third, the court reporters charge too much ($4 or more per page) and then there may be a sitting fee.

The courts have to have easy and open access.  The files must be made electronic.  I was shocked the other day to find you can only get a copy of e files in Cook county at $1 for the first page and 25 cents per page after that.  Federal Pacer is 8 cents per page.

Given all the troubles and issues currently reported on this page and the serious lack of justice in crucial cases, it would seem that the filing fees should be waived in these cases or even refunded, Appearance fees waived or refunded, and Pacer should be employed at huge discounts.

But that’s just my opinion.  Court just costs too darned much.


Is my case too big for the Tribunal to gloss over and simply dismiss out of hand?

Is my case too big for the Tribunal to gloss over?

Ken has brought up some really great points in a recent email.

Kathie testified she and her mother were told by Adam Stern that they could not visit because they “took the wrong side”.  The Chair was non plussed over this.  He had a clear agenda of “sour grapes” and stuck to it.  The powers that be should be proud of this Chair.

But the problem is, we have the Betts case which says an attorney has to have a proper CCP211 (CT and the trouble feasors did not), and the attorney has to notify the next of kin, as proscribed by the Illinois Probate act.  Again, CT and the trouble feasors did not.  Ken investigates in accordance with Betts but because he interloped and was told to “back off”, he was disciplined

Ken was “sanctioned” by Judge Connors and the trouble feasors–even though he never appeared in the probate court. The Court of Appeals vacated that sanction for lack of jurisdiction.

Ken sent hundreds of communications to anyone that would listen that the Sykes case was filled with an apparent lack of Illinois legal procdure–no notification to Next of Kin, no proper doctor’s report (you’re supposed to bring an original, and CT didn’t have it, so they appointed her without it and made her bring it December 10, 2009 so she could get appointed), a TRO that did not follow the proper procedure and it lasted for over 150 ten day periods, cash of some $50k missing from a mattress, a safe deposit box drilled out in April of 2009 and the court is never told.

We can’t say the “C” word, so no problem, I can always list at least some string of departures from normal legal procedure in the Sykes case.  It is text book.

But what will they do with all of this?  Kathie and Yolanda’s testimony was wonderful.  Too bad Gloria wasn’t there because she had a lot to testify about too–all the lack of procedure, the threats, the court being completely disrespectful to her (and I saw much of that), the Red Snuggy video that was never seen.

I assume Ken is letting all his clients know what happened to him and that he cannot appear in court for them or give them legal advice.

But he can continue to be an advocate for all the probate and court victims that need his help.  Michael Gearhart is looking for volunteers for legislation he is trying to pass to help parents that have little or no visitation but were never declared “unfit” by any court.  How does that happen?

So, the other day a reporter asked me what I thought about Ken’s suspension and has it chilled my speech.  I think the ARDC did that a long time ago, and the Tribunal has put the last nail in the coffin.

For all the other attorneys out there: 1) you can’t say the word “corruption”, “tortfeasor”, “railroading (a case”), “follow the money trail”–even if you’re just talking about attorneys getting paid, well paid huge sums out of an estate; 2) you can’t use those as tags because when you google a troublefeasor, then their name shows up in a Google list and then you have to actually click on a link and read it to find out anything.  Now you can Google Ken’s and my name and get the same, but you better not do that with any trouble feasor or judge’s name.

So, for now, no “corruption” until the ARDC says otherwise.  I’m going to use sports terms.  Foul play, foul players.  Okay, I used to play baseball as a kid, so I got that.  You can’t say tort feasor, so we can change that to “trouble feasor” or maybe “problem feasor”.  You can’t say railroading a case, so we can say “cases seriously lack judicial procedure”.  Ken used to always say “frugal with the truth” and that would do well with the lack of procedure and justice in Sykes, so “frugal with judicial procedure” or “seriously and patently lacking judicial procedure” works too.

What I still can’t believe is that Dr. Sanders said to me on the stand, “why can’t you simply report it to the authorities and be done with it.”  Of course my answer was, it’s a pattern, it’s reported over and over and over again, and nothing is done and the public must be warned.

Now, indeed it was very funny coming from him.  As the eldest member of that panel, clearly over 60 and likely approaching 70, I seriously don’t think he knows how much at risk he is of becoming an elder cleansing victim.

Okay, maybe if you don’t know you’re likely to become a probate victim, you deny it to yourself, that will become your karma?  No, that’s not it because you can’t blame evil on anyone other than the individuals commiting it themselves.  They make the choice to do it and only they can be blamed.  The others the good ones, the “white doves” we have to protect.

As for me, today I am still looking for office space and donations of office space for my new charity/NFP Justice4Every1 so the loss of my law license won’t bug me, I can still do the same thing that NASGA does and the other probate blogs and give refuge to the probate victims, putting together packages for them of the law and helping them write up packages to law enforcement, watching the probate courts and reporting on it here and copying files and looking for volunteer civil rights attorneys to take on these cases.  I will be perfectly prepared and armed to do justice if and when the decision is handed down.

The purpose of this blog is NOT to harm or offend anyone, other than by publishing the TRUTH.  And it’s not just the TRUTH, but it’s the TRUTH in order to improve what is going on in court.  The blog is a mirror unto justice.  If you do it in secret in the court and you are afraid that someone will learn of what you are doing, THEN YOU ARE DOING THE WRONG THING.  

I honestly don’t care about someone else’s karma or punishment or discipline. I know that is for one’s own soul to figure out.  When it was said “vengeance is mine, saith the Lord (Lady)”–that is a true statement. Don’t judge and just butt out and know that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Whom you have harmed, apologize.  What you have done wrong, make amends.  BUT NEVER APOLOGIZE FOR SPEAKING YOUR TRUTH.  Like Sarah Barrielles, you need to speak your truth, and then let it go.  It is up to the recipient to take it well or take it poorly, your job is only to speak the truth.

I have not accused any particular person in any courtroom of being the “c” word, or taking bribes or taking cash from anyplace.  I personally believe that’s not how it is done.  Is there cronyism, favoritism, whatever?  Maybe I don’t know.  WHAT I DO KNOW, is that Sykes and other cases I am working on NEED AN INVESTIGATION.  We need to push the authorities for that.  It took decades to get Dect. Burge arrested and removed from his office.  Truly, I don’t care about the arrest part, that is only for those that seek vengeance, which is NOT my job.  Getting a person to reform OR to convince them to get a different job if they can’t keep their hands out of the cookie jar IS my job.  If the authorities won’t act, then the public should be warned with the truth.  This is so we can all spot patterns, put together evidence, documents, preserve what needs to be preserved and be prepared for when we enter that courtroom.  It is patently unfair and unreasonable to silence the only people that know what the law is, can read the cases and statutes and understand them and say what was done properly and what was not.  These are not false statement or statements made with disregard for the truth.  They are the truth.  Also, if a courtroom is suffering and has no good reputation, there is no way an attorney can bring that courtroom into disrepute.  I am a trademark lawyer so I know from my background if you’re going to say that a product has been disparaged, you better be able to prove it.  If you say your product is well known by the public, then conduct a survey and show the court that.  If you claim your reputation is good to excellent and can be disparaged, then proved it, or just shut up.

I really didn’t see anything from Kathie or Yolanda’s testimony that the reputation of the Sykes court was anything close to stellar.  BUT my blog gave a platform for their experiences and comments–which I believed was fair–based upon my knowledge of what a court or judge can and should do.  I’m not sure at this point anyone can bring 09 P 4585 into ill repute.  It’s just a troubled case.  And I won’t say hopelessly.  At ANY POINT, the attorneys can just step in and do their jobs.  Give Gloria her home and money back and get that house repaired so Gloria and Mary can live there without interference.  And ALL the attorneys can waive fees.  What happened was utterly ridiculous.  That’s just my opinion.  You create bad karma, you fix bad Karma.  We are human beings, we screw up.  But the nice thing is, you CAN fix it at anytime before it’s over, and not leave it as a mess for someone else to fix.

Peter Schmeidel wants Gloria’s $272k and someone should speak up and tell him to drop it.  The other attorneys should drop it too and let Mary go.  Again, that’s my opinion.

Serious lacks of judicial procedure can and must be remedied.  We need more probate blogs and court watchers and volunteer attorneys and not less of them.

I made my choice a long time ago, so did Mr. Amu and Ken Ditkowsky.  It’s not a hard choice.  I want to go home with my tail feathers on and intact.  I am certainly not perfect.  I don’t do things right all the time and I have learned a ton of a ton of a ton of law running this blog.  I now know my Constitutional Law (which I thought I would NEVER use as a patent attorney) cold.  All the cases, all the IARDC cases.  And you know that’s funny too.  The ARDC hands me a packet of cases, and not a one in there was US Supreme Court law in their favor on this issue of blogging.  On the otherhand, there was little reason for me to copy and provide them with cases, because ours (mine) are all US Supreme Court and everyone should know those.

Another day, another blog for justice, honor and integrity in the courtroom.  I’m a bit sad for Ken, but let’s face it, we knew this day was coming.  We knew that the victims are slowly slogging through all of this on their own, with no funding, no lawyers, and sadly, that means, no justice.

I hope you like reading this blog.  It seems that my readership grows each and every day.  I get views from all over the world and probably about 120 countries by now.  The fleecing of elders in and out of the court room seems to be a worldwide problem.  They’re not dead yet, but the pockets are being picked and the bodies are shipped to warehouse.  It’s so bad, I’m sure you have read the posts where seniors have committed suicide rather than being put in “the program.”

Ginny’s father said he Nazi captors were kinder to him than his probate court and his GAL.  Ken just got an email the other day of the same ilk.  A Jewish woman whose mother lived through the worst of the war, and when she entered into the Illinois probate system, and the GAL’s and probate attorneys started their little “tricky business”, her conclusion was that her Nazi imprisoners where she was treated her better than her GAL and court appointed attorney.

There is something seriously broken with a system when our 90 year old elders are saying things like that.

Until then, if you’re over 60, hide the bank accounts, the fine jewelry, china and crystal and dump the classic cars.  Look like your poor and hide everything.  They sell safes you can bury in the backyard, Gibralter is a safe country and will not cooperate with the US authorities to turn over bank accounts.  (Thanks to research by Scott Evans).  Buy an RV and check the probate docket when you or your greedy relatives live once per month looking for your name (hey, that would be a good business).  The few people who didn’t have their lives totally lost, did this and escaped and just sent back documents they were competent.  Of course, the cases were dismissed and the troublefeasors still got judgements for $20k or more, but at least the seniors kept their life, liberty and property.

It’s the only way I know to avoid “the tricky business system”.  And if you’re in it right now and want to get out (I know more than a few of you), my thoughts and prayers are with you and we’re working on it.

And please, someone get a copy of this to Dr. Sanders.  I don’t think he realizes what he has gotten himself in to or what danger he is truly in.


From Ken Ditkowsky, leaving a club that isn’t worth it

To: nasga us <>
Cc: NASGA <>, probate sharks <>, Jo Anne M Denison <>, GLORIA SYKES <>, Janet Phelan <>, “” <>, “” <>, “ACLU@ACLU.ORG” <ACLU@ACLU.ORG>
Subject: Re: A Message for you from NASGA Member RE: From Attorney Ken Ditkowsky RE: The latest in the attempt …
Date: Mar 17, 2014 9:02 PM
(this is from a question about suing in the Sup. Ct. of Illinois)
I have filed a Civil Rights suit in the Federal court.    The Court will not take an appeal from the Illinois Supreme Court, but it will address the private usage of state facilities to deny a citizen of his/her Civil Rights.    JoAnne Denison and I have filed such as lawsuit.
Under the Constitution only States can bring lawsuit in the Supreme Court; however, individuals have to file for cert.   Most cases are not accepted.     I did argue the case of Terrazas vs. Vance before the Supreme Court and there is a good possibility that the Supreme Court might take this case.   The reason it is a First Amendment case that has National implications.   We shall see.
The best avenue of approach is to get law enforcement to enforce the law.    The laws of most states are very good and protective of the elderly; however, the miscreants have taken the judiciary into their partnership and they wage war against the elderly and the infirm for fun and profit.    The GAO report and the reports that I have been getting all indicate a similar pattern:
1) the target elderly person is railroaded into a guardianship.   2) the elderly person is confined away from family and friends and stripped of their savings.   3) the elderly person is killed.    To be less brutal in my accusation I use the words:  retroactively aborted, or subjected to involuntary assisted suicide.    I call this ‘elder cleansing.’  
It appears that State lawyer disciplinary commissions are aiding and abetting this process.    Most lawyers are afraid of these commissions as they can be arbitrary and most seriously they have no holds barred.    For instance, in may case my Constitutional Rights were violated with impunity and no not one of the panels (or the Supreme Court of Illinois) gave a damn.     The Supreme Court of Illinois affirmed a decision that ruled that speech was not protected by the First Amendment!!!
Thank you for your kind thoughts.    As a citizen I have just begun to fight.    For the record, I invite anyone who desires to join with me.     It is sad when lawyers being paid over a 100,000 a year know less about the United States Constitution than pre-teens who want to go to high school.  
Ken Ditkowsky

Just Announced Today–Foul Players 2, Good Guys Zero

See below and let the IARDC know how you feel about disciplining attorneys speaking out against the foul play previously reported upon. (The IARDC does not like the words corruption, miscreants, railroading, etc. so we must use “foul play”, “foul players” and involuntarily waived justice for cases involving elder cleasings and trafficing..

However, Mr. Amu and Mr. Ditkowsky, I have given you ammunition.  You have the ability to launch it, let’s get going.  Otherwise, my launch will start soon.

I am most interested to know if a lot of the “funny stuff” I talked about to the Tribunal will remain in the transcripts.

I will let you all know, this is most interesting, and I’m STILL getting typical reports from even more victims of probate court.

For the record, the first amendment is NOT about how many sources the attorney checked, or how many and what types of inquiries were made–it is about whether or not the attorney honestly believed the statements at the time they were made.  That is the true malice standard, and a standard the IARDC doesn’t like, BUT THAT STANDARD IS IT’S OWN WORDING IN IT’S OWN RULES.

And great thanks to Kathie Bakken for pointing this out to the tribunal. The chair was trying to convince her that lost millions in probate, the running of cases without jurisdiction, the failure to file a 1401 in 2 years proper, the issuance of a TRO for 150 ten day periods and the freezing of $272,000 in assets to pay Peter Schmeidel on a settlement that was for insurance in Gloria’s name on a house that she bought, insurance she paid for, a mortgage she paid for 10 years, a case that ran 90% of the time in the name of Gloria, etc., should actually belong to Mary when Mary never lived in the home, had no property there, did not pay for the insurance and never suffered breast cancer, then we have doctors declaring Mary incompetent without actually having seen or examined her, but there is a red snuggy video on the internet and I just showed it to a long term MA in psychology working on his PhD and he opined Mary was competent–yes Kathie Mr. Chair said this is all just sour grapes.  You should understand.  You only cry crocodile tears according to him.  And those have been my tears too according to him.

But Ken gets suspended for 4 years.  The In Re Betts disciplined an “outsider” attorney for trying to railroad a guardianship, fail to file a proper CCP211 and service the relatives and he is suspended for 1 year.  The “players” in Sykes don’t give notice, use MD’s that do not see the Respondent and a video appears showing Mary competent, there are numerous Mary writings that she objects to the guardianship and wants an attorney, but the courtroom “players” are not disciplined or even investigated.

Gloria finally manages to get a subpoena served on US bank and it reveals the drilling of a safe deposit box that the court was never told of, the GAL’s never investigated or informed the court, and the contents of the box were uninventoried and the plenary guardian has not been brought into court promptly to be questioned on the contents thereof.

Obviously  the letters, the faxes, the emails (which the IARDC doesn’t like) and the shared documents and all evidence of foul play are ignored by the authorities.

What should we do?  More letters, faxes, emails and blogs are sorely needed.  More brave volunteer attorneys.  We cannot stop.  Mr. Amu and Mr. Ditkowsky are in the process of making a bee line to the U.S. Supreme Court.  How many lawyers talking about foul play in Cook County will it take BEFORE SOMETHING IS ACTUALLY DONE about it?  That’s the question of the day.

In re Kenneth Karl Ditkowsky, 12PR0014
(One of multiple dispositions on this case)
Disposition: Suspension for a specified period of time and until further order of the Court
Effective Date of Disposition: March 14, 2014
End Date of Disposition:
Definition of Disposition: A suspension until further order of the Court reflects a determination that the lawyer has engaged in misconduct and that the misconduct warrants an interruption of the lawyer’s authority to practice law during the suspension period, which is a fixed period of time identified in the Supreme Court’s order and until the lawyer has demonstrated rehabilitation, good character, and current knowledge of the law in a subsequent reinstatement case. The lawyer is not authorized to practice law during the period of the suspension. is being sued over a billboard!

From a few sources this morning, apparently received the following:

“Lou!siana Pick your passion! But hope you don’t love your health. Gov. Jindal is denying Medicaid to 242,000 people.”

Dardenne said that the same typeface is used in the state’s “Pick Your Passion”€ ad and the MoveOn ad.

MoveOn Communications Director Nick Berning acknowledged receipt of the cease-and-desist letter and released the following response:

MoveOn will not back down in the face of baseless legal threats. If Republican officials don’t want to be criticized for keeping hundreds of thousands of Louisianans from accessing Medicaid, there’s a simple solution — they should stop preventing Louisianans from accessing Medicaid.Neither Governor Jindal nor Lt. Governor Dardenne will silence MoveOn members. This billboard is protected by the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech. Instead of wasting our time and theirs with a pathetic attempt to suppress criticism of the state government, state officials should focus on helping nearly 245,000 Louisianans access Medicaid. If he is truly concerned about Louisiana’s image, Lt. Gov Dardenne’s time should be spent getting people health care, not trying to take down a billboard.


I do hope that fights this classic attempt to silence free speech in Louisiana.  If you get a chance, go to their website and donate a few bucks.  They always have interesting things to say, whether you agree with them or not.


Here are more sources for the article:

1. “Louisiana sues over Bobby Jindal billboard,” The Times-Picayune, March 14, 2014
2. “Louisiana, MoveOn group tangle over political billboard,” The Times-Picayune, March 6, 2014
From one of the articles:
Keith Werhan, constitutional law professor at Tulane University Law School, said last week suits of this sort are usually unsuccessful: “The government can’t legally silence those who are criticizing them.”
Now, the Republican lieutenant governor of Louisiana wants us to take down a billboard criticizing Governor Jindal–who has presidential ambitions–because it’s a takeoff on the state’s tourism slogan, “Pick Your Passion.” This is a blatant attack on free speech. A state government isn’t entitled to use trademark law to censor citizens who want to criticize the state for its heartless and stupid policies.
Note, the LA government is using trademark law as an excuse to take down the bulletin board.   Now, the LA govt is getting closer to something they CAN do.  But in this case, does the public truly recognize that slogan “pick your passion” as emanating from the LA state government or the appearance of the bulletin board.   This is “look and feel” of a source of origin.  Typically the plaintiff asserting tm infringement will need to assert survey evidence as indicator of a strong mark.  Unless they get some good survey evidence, which is doubtful, I think they’re in for an uphill battle on the trademark issues.
But the trademark issues do make their road rockier and less certain. meaning more money will be spent on lawyers.
The real question is, why would LA state government engage in a trademark/defamation battle against to waste state funds?
Good article, and thanks for all your submissions.  It does help with my fight for free speech against the Illinois government.  While I have not infringed any state of Illinois trademarks or “look and feel” ads, the IARDC wants to regulate my speech when I call for an investigation and point out fairly absurd continuing irregularties in probate court.  They obviously don’t want me to use the words “corruption”, as well as “fraud, theft, embezzlement” when funds go missing from accountings and inventories.  So it makes everyone wonder why this is in light of our free speech rights.
Also, they do no ethics reporting and demands for this go unanswered, or are met with clear opposition. They do not publish salaries.  We do not know how they appointed my tribunal board or Ken’s.
But I will serve a FOIA for that one and let you all know.
Meanwhile, I have reports that a certain judicial candidate is using the words “corruption” and “Greylord” in his televised ads.  I will try to get a copy for all of you to see that some judges are concerned, besides the ones I have published here.
Thanks to all for your support.

The Hearing Transcripts from Day 1 to Day 4

Dear Readers:

Please take a look at the below.  The real questions is whether these transcripts adequately reflect the proper respect for the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the right of attorneys to blog about troubles and issues they find in the court system to 1) warn the public; 2) inform the public; 3) discuss the law as it relates to the layperson, litigants and family members or 4) whether these topics should be strictly regulated by the IARDC, an organization which itself does 1) no ethics reporting as demanded by the Illinois Ethics Act; or 2) reporting on the salaries of all attorneys, supervisors and managers as do 99% of the other State of Illinois agencies so that there is accounting and transparency in this State agency.

The Transcripts from Hearing days 1 to 4

Let me know your thoughts  Let the IARDC know your thoughts.  Note the IARDC does not take tax payer funds, but is funded from the annual registration fees paid by the lawyers themselves as reported in the 2012 ARDC Annual Report which is available on their website at  Note that while these are not taxpayer funds, they are still public funds, or payments entrusted to a public state agency for the benefit of the citizens of the State of Illinois to protect the public from incompetent and unscrupulous lawyers.

Together we can make a difference, together we can save the world.


A simple request turns into an impossible task.

From Rosanna Miller who tried to read my 4 days of transcripts:

“This is retarded. I got to page 9 out of 250 and was getting sick at my stomach. I really don’t need to read anything past that point. I get the writing on the wall…. Dear Lord, one of the 3 panel members is missing and you need a reason why you don’t want to go forward??? It is your right to have everybody there. For crying out loud this is your profession, shouldn’t they take this seriously? However the attorneys who do screw up walk away free as a jail birds.
The judicial branch is abusing the elderly across the country by human trafficking them to the living warehouse for profit. Then they sanction their own or target any lawyer who speaks up and out about the injustice. Don’t get me started on all the USC codes that violates or this post will never end. Yet they take “alleged” oaths to uphold and honor the laws. 
There is a saying “Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are.” Benjamin Franklin”
Rosanna Miller, Ohio

Corrections to blog….as requested by the IARDC

During the end of my hearing, SO pointed out the following

1) the table of tortsallegedly was wrong to mention PS as a trouble-feasor (can’t say tort feasor), but put nothing in the verbiage, so I amended that portion to make it clearer.  See item 9. (Usu. I correct after getting an email complaint, NOT after someone complains in court, so I’m reminding people if you want a correction, please EMAIL me or just post a comment.  It doesn’t help me much to mention it in court.  I’m an email person.)

2) Apparently the IARDC and the Tribunal doesn’t like the tag “corruption” either, so I’m replacing all the “corruption” tags with “not corruption”, as if that matters.  A search engine listing just directs someone to click on and read an article. If they feel better that the tag is “not corruption”, unlike those powers that be, I know my readers are smart and can click, read and understand.

3) I forget the rest of the corrections.  PLEASE don’t give me corrections in court or on the street.  EMAIL them to me.  I know the ARDC reads my blog, so if you want a correction, the proper procedure is to EMAIL or POST, not mention it in passing.  I respond to about 100 emails per day but rarely take phone calls.  So if you want a correction, it should be done by email.

4) Oh, I forgot, the IARDC wanted me to make it clear the OPG fires were not arson or intentionally set, so I changed that post too, to refer to a Chicago Tribune article for more wire service information and made it clear this was just information from attorneys and probate court victims, if you want to believe THEM.

And remembers, according to the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois (because the IARDC is its agency, created by and for them”, it is apparently Illegal to talk about or reveal the illegal activities of the state government.

Nice going.  It works until you actually READ the US Constitution and the Illinois Constitution.



From Bev and Ken Cooper–Ken and I on Cooper’s corner

Bev and Ken have the links to our shows up and running.

Scott Evans said he was watching the show and all of a sudden loud jazz music came on, so I wonder if someone doesn’t like what we say.

In any case, please see below and I will publish more links as they come in.

From KKD–Where did our Beloved America and US Constitution go?

 Attached hereto is the brief that Mr. Lanre O. Amu forwarded to me.
Indeed, it is the middle of the night and I cannot sleep and upset to the core.
My beloved America has forgotten her origins, her Constitution, the words that appear on the Statute of Liberty, and her heroes.    The sacrifice of Dr. King, et al are all being washed down the drain by a ‘government agency’ (Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission) that has run amok!    The Bill of Rights and the Constitution of the United States of America have been THROWN UNDER THE BUS!
The Rule of Law has been set forth in vivid terms by the Supreme Court of the United States in the Citizen’s United, Alvarez, Brown, Ashcroft, et al.    Americans who speak out on political and/or content related subjects may do so with impunity!    Americans can even speak out against Judicial officials in an insulting, disrespectful, and horrible way.    (Mr. Amu appears not have made his statements in Court, he was not held in contempt, nor could his statements appear to be considered an attempt to bully the trier of fact or otherwise influence a Court proceeding.    All he did was voice an opinion that certain judges did not provide his clients with a fair trial)
The issue in the Amu case is not whether the words and phrases that he used were true.    The issue is not whether or not he had due respect for the Court.  (If he did demonstrated contempt of Court the Judge could have held him in contempt and in accordance with due process punished him).   The issue is whether or not Mr. Jerome Larkin of the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission can separate Mr. Amu from his liberty and property rights and in particular his right to speak out and be critical of an elected official.    JUDGES IN ILLINOIS ARE ELECTED!
Other attorneys (including me) are being disciplined by Mr. Larkin and the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission for speaking out concerning Judicial corruption and that of Mr. Larkin and the IARDC so it is clear that Mr. Amu’s situation is not unique.    Larkin has not have the temerity to try to discipline the United States Attorney for prosecution of Operation Greylord and a few other sundry Judicial officials but, ******.     Our Justice Department in Operation Greylord sent 15 attorneys to federal prison!
Our Supreme Court in a series of cases stretching back to the founding of our United States of America has ruled that only in very limited circumstances can government (including Judicial government) regulate, impede, interfere, or otherwise limit free speech.   The Citizen’s United case and the Alvarez case are the most recent and the most offended by the actions of the IARDC that Mr. Amu complains.      Mr. Amu’s brief and the IARDC’s brief make it very clear that Mr. Amu’s actions were not even close to line.     To be very blunt – the actions of Mr. Larkin and the IARDC in their prosecution of Mr. Amu for saying whatever he said concerning Judicial corruption was not only ultra vires but offensive and disrespectful to the Rule of Law.     The prosecution of Mr. Amu for speaking his mind concerning Judicial corruption in the Court was totally protected speech and the temerity of bringing a prosecution to separate Mr. Amu from his license completely wrong, un-American, and an intentional violation of Mr. Amu’s civil rights.    It was and is ultra vires and therefore a violation of 42 USCA 1983.
Mr. Amu focuses upon the fact that he believes that his words and phrases are true.     You and I and all Americans should not give a tinker’s damn if Mr. Amu’s words are true or not – it is not our right or privilege (or that of our government) to judge.    The Rule of Law in America says that Mr. Amu has the right to express his opinion whether it offends Dr. King, Mr. Larkin, Mr. Ditkowsky, Ms. Denison, President Obama, Mr. Putin, or any, other human being.
I call upon all who read this e-mail to take a moment and reflect on what America stands for and why we love her.    The actions of Mr. Larkin and the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission are shameful, wrong, and in my opinion a direct violation of the Constitution and the Rule of Law.     I for one cannot sleep when injustice and gross disrespect for the our Law is so stark!
Ken Ditkowsky

Dear Ken;

And while you cannot sleep, some of not only cannot sleep but actually wake up crying for our victims and how the IARDC dismisses our complaints out of hand.

A particularly embarrassing case for them is In re Betts (Betts, In re, 485 N.E.2d 1081, 109 Ill.2d 154, 92 Ill.Dec. 838 (Ill., 1985)) where an Illinois attorney was disciplined for NOT serving two close relatives in a guardianship case, even though he knew of their existence.  This left the case without jurisdiction (which was not mentioned in the IARDC decision).

In our case, we complain about miscreant attorneys that appoint CT, do not serve the relatives, now we have it of record that Yolanda and Kathie had no idea what was going on on Dec. 7, 2009, and they never received notice of the time, date and place 14 days in advance of Mary’s guardianship.  We complain about that to the IARDC and our complaints are dismissed, yet the miscreant attorneys who knew better–CF, AS and HW go scott free.  Even worse, PS picked up this case, got involved, did not do his Rule 137 duty as set forth by the Illinois Supreme Court, and he too is exonerated.  He did not report any of the CF, AS and HW under the case In re Betts.

The IARDC is mad at me for saying Judge Stuart, AS, CF, HW, DJS, PS are all “favored attorneys”, that there is obvious bias (which Kathie noted on the stand) that numerous other attorneys have noted, and NO, Mr. Chair, no one believes YOU that the Sykes case is just sour grapes after the dozen of attorneys that family has talked to.  I receive anonymous phone calls all the time regarding Sykes and many, many Illinois attorneys won’t go up against the IARDC because IT DOES NOT FILE ETHICS REPORTS, it does not publish salaries, it does not publish how it selects it’s tribunal members.

Numerous Greylord books noted that the IARDC did nothing during Greylord, and even prosecuted attorneys from a blue ribbon commission assembled by Mayor Richard Daley that reported the IARDC ignored numerous complaints about Greylord activities.

I cry because this isn’t just passing a few hundred dollars over the bench.  We have documented millions missing off of inventories (Sykes, Tyler, Gore, Drabik, etc.) plus the obvious violations of human and civil rights where families are ripped asunder and the elder is isolated until death by narcotics and starvation occurs (Gore and Drabik).  John Wyman’s mother suffered near daily beatings and “attitude adjustments” and a Rockford GAL and probate attorney stood by and did nothing.  They were reported to the IARDC and the IARDC did nothing.  A staffer would get into bed naked next to Mrs. Wyman and masturbate it turns out.  One of the worst nursing homes in Rockford and the Rockford GAL and probate attorney DID NOTHING but probably place more wards at that nursing home.

So I cry tears.  And I don’t sleep.  And the IARDC ruins my life, my dedication and devotion to YOU, my countless probate victims.  Of course, my career is ruined, destroyed and my nights are sleepless and filled with night terrors of how these innocent, elderly, frail victims were starved and dehydrated to death (which is a very painful death and don’t tell me the morphine patches cover up all of that), they were beaten, sexually abused, placed in the hands of individuals they specifically said they did not want to have control them (Drabik, Gore,Wyman, Sykes)

What did the IARDC say that makes the case look like a cover up?

1) Repeatedly arguing with a witness that her aunt’s sordid case was just “sour grapes”, giving no credence, sympathy, empathy or true understanding of the situation.  Like looking into the empty eyes of a soul less alien entity devoid of compassion.  Why was I the only one in the court room crying over the severe, repeated, gross and disgusting injustices.

2) Asking one or more witnesses how many supporters there were of Gloria, family and friends.  The witness had to admit to protests in the Daley center with picket signs bearing the name Mary Sykes, probate court and Judge Stuart.

3) Telling me when they asked about how I investigated cases, that they did not care about Rockford, only Cook County (why, are you only going to cover up for Crook County?  The Rockford courts are on their own, no honor among miscreants?

It doesn’t really matter what my Tribunal does.  I hope they will do the right thing and acquit me of all charges, but they don’t have a very good track record on First Amendment rights (Peel — where all the attorney wanted to do was list his truthful certifications on his letterhead, SCOTUS said that was covered by the First Amendment),

The IARDC still needs to do the right thing.  They needs to tell the miscreants to dismiss the Sykes case and settle with Gloria and her family for damages in that case.

Ken compares the ratty nursing homes that the elderly are sent to to the Gulags or “attitude ajustment” camps in Russia.

But there is a whole long history of people not speaking out and preventing harm.

The T4 program in Nazi Germany instructs us accordingly.

It started with one couple writing to Hitler to ask if they could have their deformed, deaf and blind son euthanized.  Hitler said yes, and more couples with deformed children started writing to him, so he started the T4 Action program to rid Germany of of deformed, useless children. (the following is from Wiki,

Like others I have written of, Drabik and Gore who were elderly and frail, children did not protest their own deaths, they did not resist, they did not require restraints. So T4 was expanded to older children, pre teens and then even adolescents.  But by then, the older children and teens would sometimes protest and require restrains as they were poisoned by injection with muscle relaxants which stopped the heart and lungs.  That is when the doctors (yes, T4 undoubtedly involved hundreds, if not thousands of cooperative licensed MD’s and nurses and administrative staff–college educated, licensed professions), developed “the most important discovery” that carbon monoxide can do dozens, and then hundreds of undesirable and incurable patients in asylums and hospitals in one batch, and they were then quickly cremated and the family was sent a death notice the patient “unfortunately” died of made up maladies such as pneumonia, appendicitis, infections, etc.   You name it, these docs spent all day making it up and putting it on a form because “they were told to.”  More and more patients were then classified “T4”.

The most important point of T4?  Out of all the doctors, nurses, college educated hospital staff, NOT ONE OF THEM PUBLICLY PROTESTED.  At one point, in one town, some angry teens who figured out the busloads of patients transferred to hospitals that never left and the crematoria spewing out ashes and bits of human hair, did assemble together and publicly protest.

Hitler was careful to avoid towns that were heavily Catholic due to the deep ingraining  of the sanctity and blessedness of human life.  T4 and the concentration camps were run without a single directive from Hitler in writing.  In fact, one judge threatened a local T4 program noting there was no law, no directive from Hitler and therefore it could not continue.  He was quickly removed from the bench.

But for the most part NO doctors or nurses publicly protested T4.  It is likely if T4 had been stopped in its tracks Hitler could not have proceeded to 6 million healthy Jews not in asylums or hospitals. (Imagine that, a hospital where you go to be evaluated for T4 and then killed if you qualify).  Only ONE doctor reclassified all his patients as outside of T4 and saved them all.  Only ONE.  Like Schindler, though, they did not publicly protest.

So I’m saying it now, and I’m saying it loud and clear to the IARDC and ANY state or federal agencies that will listen–Grandma and Grandpa are becoming nursing home victims to cronyism and a program of “not corruption” so attorneys cannot publicly protest.  I can’t used the word “corrupt” according to my trial, so I won’t.  I’m not supposed to tag anything “corruption” so I will start lying and tag everything “not corruption”.  (Note with tags, this doesn’t work, tags pick up individual words)  (Also note with tags, if you google Ken or myself with the word “corruption” we pop up too.  AND I DON’T CARE.  Tag me with corruption, make the reader read.)

It was not until late in the T4 program and by then the concentration camp program that a German Cardinal finally read aloud a letter protesting forced euthanasia and reaffirming the sanctity of life that protests began among German catholics and the letter was read aloud in all the German churches eventually and protests in German started to take off.  But by then it was simply too late.  A deeply entrenched machine had already flourished for years. Jews and other undesireables were already being sent to their deaths by the bus loads.  Only the end of the war would stop this machine.

So I stand here today and I will trash my law license so that this T4 program with grandma and grandpa will go no further.  Many have gone to the ARDC, the federal and state authorities with credible cases and plenty of evidence and were completely ignored.  T4 was implemented, condoned and covered up by attorneys in the Drabik and Gore cases.

Remember, T4 started with infants.  Our seniors are just as vulnerable.

Just say NO to T4 in the US.  Say NO to involuntary euthanasia for elders. Say NO to elder cleansing and elder trafficing.  Whatever you call it, it’s just plain wrong and people, and especially attorneys must blog and must protest.

Human life and human rights ARE sacred.  They are blessed.  The elderly are a blessing to us, even if they are 95, 100 or more years old.  They are not to be targeted, fleeced and killed off.

Go ahead, ARDC, make me a martyr.  Make me a poster child.


From Ken Ditkowsky — the financial realities of the Nursing Home business

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Mar 14, 2014 9:22 AM
To: matt senator kirk , “” , “” , “” , “” , “” , “” , “” , SUNTIMES , Chicago Tribune
Cc: NASGA , probate sharks , Jo Anne M Denison , Harry Heckert , j ditkowsky

To the elected representatives of the State of Illinois:
The family expense statute was intended by the legislature to protect families and creditors so that a rich husband could not leave his wife and children penniless.    Thus, a wife could charge her husband’s account for necessaries.    Today, it appears that the following scenario occurs, to wit:
A senior citizen gets sick.    The period of the hospital stay is slim or none and the senior is hauled off to a nursing home.    As you are well aware, many of the nursing homes are poorly run and it is not usual for the senior to be found in his/her own urine and in a zombie state.  (The zombie state being induced by drugs alleged administered to protect the patient!)     The cost of these facilities is more than a luxury vacation.   A semi private room $7,750, a private room $8,897 a sub acute room $15,314.00 and a sub acute private room $18, 724.00.    The profit margins are obscene.
As you are aware the above costs do not include drugs.    The recent Omicare scandal further augments the scenario.    An aspirin tablet is given a more profitable designation that commands a higher price and *****.    All that the trade will bear is the credo.
As soon as the insurance runs out – which is rather quickly – the seniors estate is hit for these costs.    If the senior is married, after the last dollar is dragged from the individual’s account the assets of the spouse become attractive.      Thus, the nursing home operators file a lawsuit pursuant to the Family Expense statute.    (This is a integral part of the war on the elderly).     The United States of America has taken away the incentive of the nursing home operator to settle the matter as it guarantees the nursing home operator 75% of the billing if the judgment is not collectible.    Thus the residual is another unconscionable drain on the assets of the elderly reducing as many to poverty as possible for the benefit of the fat cat nursing home operators.
It should be noted that the Insurance carriers receive huge discounts, but the private seniors pay retail.
Now when you couple this situation with the ‘elder cleansing’ cases (guardianship abuse, deprivation of liberty, financial exploitation, and assisted involuntary suicide) we have an intolerable situation that needs First to be fully investigated and Second to be remediated.
It is much easier and much more politically profitable to accommodate the nursing home moguls who give millions of dollars to political campaigns and who deliver hundred of sure fire votes; however, it is important to realize two principles:  1) we all get old; and 2) as we get old we become more and more vulnerable.    Take a look at in re: Mary Sykes 09 P 4585 to see an ongoing elder cleansing case.
N.B.    According Mr. Larkin at the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission it is unethical for my to author this e-mail or for any Attorney blogger to republish it.    The mention of the Mary Sykes case, the Alice Gore case or similar cases reflects badly on the Judges who were involved in those cases as well as certain guardian ad litem and therefore according to Mr. Larkin and ARDC  a lawyer cannot speak on the subject.    I personally disagree and assert my First Amendment rights.     Frankly, it my belief that the War on the elderly and disabled that is being actively waged by certain miscreants involves the commission of serious felonies and therefore we routinely copy law enforcement pursuant to 18 USCA section 4.   This instant e-mail has been forwarded as it contains a prayer for an HONEST intelligent complete and comprehensive investigation.
Ken Ditkowsky

From Atty Michael Gearhart–important new legislation

Dear Readers;

There also seems to be a disconnect of some sort in Family Court.  For some reason, I have heard from Ms. GC that she was never declared unfit, yet she has filed motion after motion to see her children and the judge simply won’t grant a motion for visitation or parenting time!

So this bill is important, please contact Atty Michael Gearhart if you are interested in having this bill passed to protect competent, caring parents.

From: “Michael Gerhardt (GGH LAW)”
Sent: Mar 14, 2014 8:01 AM
To: ‘JoAnne M Denison’
Subject: RE: FW: Springfield or Bust – Thursday, March 20, 2014 ****VERY FRICKIN IMPORTANT****

Headed to court for myself right now.  (I have special 8:30 AM or 5:00 PM calls)  Here is a link:

Here is the synopsis:

Synopsis As Introduced
Amends the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act. To the list of purposes of the Act, adds: (i) continuing existing child-parent relationships; and (ii) recognizing that the involvement of each parent for equal time and not less than 35% of residential parenting time per week is presumptively in the children’s best interests. Provides that the court shall allocate parenting time according to the child’s best interests and that it is presumed that it is in the child’s best interests to award equal time to each parent. Provides that unless the parents present a mutually agreed written and notarized parenting plan within 90 days of both parties filing an appearance, the court shall allocate parenting time. Provides that it is presumed that both parents are fit and the court shall not place any restrictions on parenting time unless it finds by clear and convincing evidence that a parent’s exercise of parenting time would seriously endanger the child’s physical, mental, moral, or emotional health. Provides that in cases where the court finds that it is not in the best interests of the child for the parents to have equal time or that it is not possible for both parents to share time equally, a minimum of 35% residential time per week should be ordered for the non-custodial parent. Provides that the non-custodial parent may waive his or her right to a 35% minimum residential time per week. Provides that parents may agree to an alternate parenting schedule, subject to the court’s approval. Provides that the term “visitation” includes parenting time. Provides that the parties shall implement an order allocating parenting time no more than 60 days after the entry of the order. Makes corresponding changes.

Michael D. Gerhardt
Law Offices of
Gerhardt & Haskins LLP
730 West Randolph Street
Chicago, Illinois 60661

NEW FAX: 312-284-4815

Requiring the use of an Interpreter….a Federal Mandate

Dear Readers;

Some of you may have encountered the same problems as AR, one of our members. Apparently, AR has a mother that speaks a foreign language, so when the police come out to investigate, they say they can’t do anything about financial abuse and exploitation.

However our investigator, Mr. Jim Simms found the below statute that MANDATES the use of a interpreter IF federal funds are accepted and IF there are sufficient funds (which is most always the case).

So, if you victims out there have been told by a federal agency “we can’t do anything” because grandma or grandpa is from the old country and speaks no English, now you know YOUR HAVE RIGHTS–including the right to demand an interpreter to be present during the investigation.

Thanks so much Alyece and Jim Simms for bringing this to our attention.  The more rights we know, the more we can stop courtroom and elder abuse.

The below is from or the US Dept. of Justice.

Again, the laws are already there, we just need to KNOW and IMPLEMENT.

Overview of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Title VI, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq., was enacted as part of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964. It prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. As President John F. Kennedy said in 1963:

Simple justice requires that public funds, to which all taxpayers of all races [colors, and national origins] contribute, not be spent in any fashion which encourages, entrenches, subsidizes or results in racial [color or national origin] discrimination.

If a recipient of federal assistance is found to have discriminated and voluntary compliance cannot be achieved, the federal agency providing the assistance should either initiate fund termination proceedings or refer the matter to the Department of Justice for appropriate legal action. Aggrieved individuals may file administrative complaints with the federal agency that provides funds to a recipient, or the individuals may file suit for appropriate relief in federal court. Title VI itself prohibits intentional discrimination. However, most funding agencies have regulations implementing Title VI that prohibit recipient practices that have the effect of discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin.

To assist federal agencies that provide financial assistance, the wide variety of recipients that receive such assistance, and the actual and potential beneficiaries of programs receiving federal assistance, the U.S. Department of Justice has published a Title VI Legal Manual. The Title VI Legal Manual sets out Title VI legal principles and standards. Additionally, the Department has published an Investigation Procedures Manual to give practical advice on how to investigate Title VI complaints. Also available on the Federal Coordination and Compliance Website are a host of other materials that may be helpful to those interested in ensuring effective enforcement of Title VI.

Statutes and Regulations
  • Title VI Statute (ZZZHTML version) Department of Justice’s Title VI Regulations (28 C.F.R. § 42.101 et seq.) (HTML or PDF) Department of Justice’s Title VI Coordination Regulations (28 C.F.R. § 42.401 etseq.) (HTML or PDF)
  • Department of Justice’s Guidelines for the Enforcement of Title VI (28 C.F.R. § 50.3) (HTML or PDF)
  • Rulemaking actions to incorporate the Civil Rights Restoration Act’s definitions of “program or activity” and “program” into regulations implementing Title VI, Section 504, and the Age Discrimination Act:
  • Twenty-two agencies’ Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, published December 6, 2000 (65 FR 76460) (HTML or PDF)
  • Twenty-two agencies’ Final Rule, published August 26, 2003 (68 FR 51332) (HTML or PDF)
  • Department of Education’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (also includes amendments to Title IX regulations), published May 5, 2000 (65 FR 26464) (HTML or PDF)
  • Department of Education’s Final Rule (also includes amendments to Title IX regulations), published November 13, 2000 (65 FR 68049) (HTML or PDF)
  • Department of Health and Human Services’ Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (also includes amendments to Title IX regulations), published October 26, 2000 (65 FR 64194) (HTML or PDF)
Title VI Regulations of Other Federal Agencies

This page includes links to the Title VI and Title IX regulations as well as the nondiscrimination statutes, regulations, and/or guidance, classified by agency and inter-agency agreements.

Title VI Materials
LEP Materials

Information on Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency (Executive Order 13166)


Department of Justice

Department of Health and Human Services


Link to Title VI portion of the FCS Publications Page

What to do if you have a Title VI complaint, or have some questions on Title VI

Download our complaint form and mail it to us Call our Title VI Hotline:
1-888-TITLE-06 (1-888-848-5306) (Voice or TDD)

Please let us know if you have trouble understanding English or need help communicating with the Civil Rights Division. Ask for an interpreter or if translated material is available when you contact us. If you can, please tell us your language (or dialect).

Availability of Language Assistance Services   (English)
توافر خدمات المساعدة اللغوية – قسم الحقوق المدنية   (Arabic)
语言协助服务现成可用   (Simplified Chinese)
語言協助服務現成可用   (Traditional Chinese)
Magagamit na Mga Paglilingkod Ukol sa Tulong na Pangwikain — Sangay sa Mga Karapatang Sibil   (Filipino)
Disponibilité de services d’aide linguistique   (French)
[언어 지원 서비스 이용 – 인권국   (Korean)
Disponibilidade de Serviços de Assistência Linguística – Divisão dos Direitos Civis   (Portuguese)
Управление по делам о нарушениях гражданских прав   (Russian)
Disponibilidad de servicios de asistencia lingüística   (Spanish)
Sự Sẵn Sàng của Dịch Vụ Hỗ Trợ Ngôn Ngữ   (Vietnamese)

This page was last updated on October 31, 2013 .

From Ken Ditkowsky –Gloria’s arrest was a serious matter

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Mar 13, 2014 3:18 PM
To: JoAnne M Denison , GLORIA SYKES
Cc: Chicago FBI
Subject: Re: Alteration of transcripts

The criminal events are much more serious than ‘false arrest.’    As the Court never had jurisdiction in the Sykes case, and certainly had no jurisdiction over Gloria to demand that she tell them where she kept her money what we are dealing with in opinion is kidnapping, assault, battery, extortion, intimidation.     For all purposes, the Lumberman order was a final order.   735 ILCS 5/2-1401 is the only way to attack a final order after term time.   An ex-parte proceeding in the probate court does not cut the mustard!    In addition there is little thing about Illinois Courts lacking jurisdiction over Indiana businesses and Indiana citizens.
For a judge to order that a person be restrained the judge has to hold that person in contempt.    If the contempt occurs within the sight of the judge, no hearing (Direct Contempt) is necessary and to cure a disruption the Judge is the sovereign in his own courtroom.   Something like the captain of the ship; however, in America due process has to occur.   Thus, allegedly without a verified petition, without notice, hearing, legal representation or any of the basic Constitutional safeguards Gloria was chained and restrained.   While chained and restrained it appears that she was forced to reveal where she kept her money.
What really frosts me is the letter of July 1, 2013 from the IARDC telling us that they would not investigate Adam Stern because he was Gloria Sykes’ GAL.    The author of the letter – another attorney – knew or should have know when she wrote the letter that it was totally false.   Of course after being called on it, 17 days the false statement became a ‘typo’  BUT now that the excuse had been shot down no investigation followed.    How do things like this occur in America!!!!    Last night  Mrs. Cooper gave us an explanation.    (tie to the nursing home industry)
It is the fact that if the facts are as they have been reported to us the facts reveal multiple felonies.     Therefore we have reported the felonies to the law enforcement authorities pursuant to 18 USCA 4.    Some of the people acting in concert (see 18 USCA 371) are attorneys and therefore we have reported the information to the IARDC.
JoAnne – I realize that Mr. Larkin considers it a breach of the ethical requirements of the legal canons of ethics and before his panels I have been convicted and you have just finished a hearing but as a human being upon seeing such perfidious conduct it is quite clear that an open and notorious report to law enforcement has to be made.     I understand that Mr. Larkin’s attorney argued at your hearing that there were no Supreme Court cases that were applicable to attorney’s protections under the First Amendment.      I guess no one at the IARDC read Sawyer, Peel, et al.    (Peel was interesting as it looked to everyone like a pure case of ***** that resulted from Peel being too successful in defending clients before the IARDC.
The Sheriff’s deputy taking your laptop is indeed a Civil Rights violation that using the criterion of 18 USCA 371 we could tie him in with our most favorite miscreants.    However,  I am not anxious to make the lawsuit more complex.    I would like to focus in the current Federal Pleading strictly on the concerted acts of the named defendants to attempt to silence you and me.     The Sheriff’s deputy should be disciplined by the Sheriff  for his improper acts (as should the deputy or deputies who assaulted Gloria).     As a law enforcement person he should never act against the Rule of Law.
Ken Ditkowsky

Now that the trial is over……

A few impressions from the last two days.

As you may or not know, trial is always a ton of stress.  You think about it constantly, you are constantly organizing, reading, checking cases, organizing them. (Which reminds me I should be sharing the first amendment cases on gdrive with all of you).  It’s basically like running a marathon each and every day.  It is stressful for both sides.  I’m not sure how the judges do, but I did see panel members checking cell phones not infrequently during my testimony.

In any case, Kathie did an excellent job, Yolanda did an excellent job and I think this was the first time two probate victims testified in front of the IARDC.  The panel did their best to dispel the Mary G Sykes probate case as just repeated sour grapes to Kathie and Yolanda, but I don’t think that got far.

I was on Bev Cooper’s Cooper’s corner yesterday and we talked a bit more about her mother’s case, Alice Gore, and Kathie Bakken was kind enough to send me the following link:

 which has more information on Alice Gore and all the horrors that happened to this family.
I am currently investigating two new cases and can use volunteers to go down to court, get me copies of the files and scan the documents in so we call discuss them.
John Wyman is doing all right now.  After his mother died, he had to undergo surgery for colon cancer for a number of polyps.  Now, he needs a hip replacement, so please continue to pray for him.  He has figured out how to pay the taxes on his mother’s home–a home that the GAL tried to sell for attorneys fees.  He is still trying to put his life back together and deal with the Rockford home which now needs substantial repairs and clean up.  Please pray for him.
And I would like to thank Nejla for all her hard work on my trial. She did a great job and I appreciate all that she did.  Her specialty is criminal law and immigration and she is a wonderful, wonderful lawyer who cares a whole lot.
And remember, if you need help and no attorney will help or listen, Ken and I are there for you. We have absolutely no intention of stopping our work or ignoring courtroom abuse victims.  So call us, talk to us if you have concerns.


From Kent Ditkowsky–my trial proves that it’s not over…..


from: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Mar 11, 2014 9:40 PM
To: Jo Anne M Denison
Subject: Farenga

The arrogance of our favorite miscreants has no bounds.   They are so used to having the court kiss their GMs that even in the Federal Court they have little problem with misrepresenting the facts.    The recitation of the facts in the Motions filed by these defendants has little relation to the allegations actually made.      The Statute of Limitations argument is almost amazing.   With the bad deeds still going on the miscreants are trying to say that we knew from day one that they were amoral individuals and therefore on day one the Statute of limitations commenced.   Further as they committed an assault on the First Amendment the tort statute for physical abuse (2 years) should apply.
What apparently has our favorite miscreants worried is that as we develop evidence of criminal behavior we will be sharing it with law enforcement.   What this means is that is the information that you dug up on Larkin, Farenga’s husband et al can be accessed by law enforcement at the click of a mouse.     The depositions of the miscreants similarly will be available to law enforcement.
At some time in the future, I expect that the IARDC will have an administrator who takes the duty imposed on him seriously and will not be a vehicle to ‘cover up’ the actions of PS. MS. AS, CF et al.    Therefore, I have no trouble sharing the information that we ascertain with the next administrator of the IARDC.
All that said, JoAnne, now that the IARDC proceeding is behind you, we have to start marshaling the information that has been collected.    For instance – Farenga’s husband has an unusual number of real estate transactions.    Gloria checked the records as to his political campaign contributions and found that also suspicious.    The 60K tax lien against Stern (not disclosed by the IARDC) is also part of the mix.      The failure of Larkin and at least some of the attorneys on the IARDC staff of not filing the ethics disclosure statements is interesting.   Why they have not been called on it is similarly enlightening.    Larkin and his group spend a large amount of State money.
Tonight as I was driving home a caller called on one of those talk shows and asked the question as to how an elected official reported on his ethics report a net worth of y dollars, earned z dollars and when he left office had a net net worth of three times y plus z dollars.    His question was how did law enforcement and particularly the tax man not question the highly unlikely net worth of the public official.
I guess the explanation is that the public institutions are not open on weekends and the savings add up!    It could not be that the public official participated in the disappearance of the 1.5 million dollars from the Gore Estate, or the disappearance of the gold coins from the Sykes estate.    Such would be heresy and unethical to say out loud especially if it is true.
It is no wonder that Larkin is willing to spend every dollar in the IARDC treasury to make certain that no lawyer can without fear write to law enforcement concerning corruption!
Ken Ditkowsky

Perfect for the end of trial!–Benefits of being a Professional Fiduciary!

A little humor from a cross post by permission:

original post:

By:  IOwn Yourmama


Is a new, lucrative career as professional predator waiting for you?  Call us at 1-800-yourascumbag  or: send your resume to “Coffin Chasers r Us” !


Are you looking for a new career?  Tired of actually having to work for a living?  Do you lack any morals, ethics, any sense of empathy or sympathy?  Are you looking to make easy money?  Would it bother you to be known as a “coffin chaser”, a predator, a vulture?  Could you sleep at night knowing you had caused so much misery and 1926745_10200877827102428_569924460_nsuffering not only to your victim, but also to the extended family as a result of your chosen profession? Your personal greed? Your lack of humanity? You could??  Have we got a career for you!

Become a Professional Fiduciary!  Take ownership of another human being!

  • Our kangaroo judges will immediately strip that elderly person of all of their Constitutional protections.  By the time we are done, the victim will be “dead in the law” and our “judges” will declare them civilly dead and will effectively declare them chattel property….YOU OWN THEM!
  • Our judges can be depended upon to immediately discard all standing legal instruments that the victim might have constructed to protect themselves in old age.  Trusts?  Medical directives and surrogates?  Wills?  NOT A PROBLEM!  We can guarantee that none of these arrangements will stand and will be immediately thrown out by one of our judges!
  • We can teach you how to file false charges against family members claiming abuse, exploitation, neglect and other unsubstantiated claims.  Don’t worry about having to prove anything!  Our probate judges are more than willing to accept whatever you say without that pesky task of proving your allegations.
  • We’ll show you how to begin tapping that estate within days of your phony emergency guardianship petition.  You can be driving a new Mercedes by Friday, and you can pay all of your bills out of the victims estate! And no one can do a thing about it! 
  • Any property owned by the victim is now yours!  All personal possessions, any art work, valuable jewelry, family heirlooms, any homes or other real estate is there at your disposal! All bank accounts, investments, bonds, stocks, cars, trucks, anything of value can now be retitled to you!  You just have to say you stole sold it to “benefit the ward”!  And you can keep doing this until the estate is totally depleted.  When it is, you simply have to petition the court to allow you to resign as guardian. 
  • Even though state statutes prohibit it, we will show you how to isolate the elderly victim from their family, friends, and even from their churches.  If anyone even thinks of insisting on visiting the victim, we can promise the total cooperation and intimidation of the local police or sheriff’s office in threatening those visitors with criminal trespass if they persist.
  • We have a list of doctors who will more than willingly prescribe psychotropic medications for use as chemical restraint, even though these are strictly prohibited for use on people over 60.  In exchange for their cooperation, they are allowed to bill the victims for services never rendered.
  • We have dependable and possibly clairvoyant, psychiatrists who are quite able to diagnose all the fictional mental illnesses you can think of …..and many times they never even have to actually visit the victim! They just know! But they can write letters to the court that will scare the beejesus out of a normal person!
  • Through our network of participating facilities known as nursing homes warehouses we will drug, neglect, abuse and sometimes even starve the victim.  If they become too bothersome, our staff is not at all opposed to a little physicality in the form of an “attitude adjustment”.  Don’t worry about this, as it is a rare occasion that you will ever have to even see the victim, although you can still bill the estate as if you actually did! (Does it get any better than this?)
  • We have a cadre of unethical and immoral attorneys who are more than willing to represent you as they tap the estate right along side of you.  The fortunes that have been made by legal professionals in this field is supported by and, protected by, the fine folks at your local Bar Association.  Even your state judiciary will turn a blind eye to grand larceny, financial exploitation, and the abuse of the victim that is taking place on your command. 

These are just a few of the highlights of the career that awaits you should you decide to become a professional predator!  With our training you will learn how lucrative owning another human being can be.  Multiply that by the limitless possibility of having hundreds of victims that you supposedly are caring for.  We’ll show you how to set things up to make it look like you actually performed some kind of service to the victim while never having to do a thing except collect the money!

We guarantee that you will never be held accountable to anyone for any of the lives you will destroy. Heck! We even have judges who will give you immunity from prosecution should anyone try to hold you accountable!

So drop us a line and tell us why you think you could work as a predator in the guardianship field. The professional fiduciary field is the fastest growing and most lucrative cottage industry in the country and is fully supported by the Bar Association, The National Guardianship Association, Judicial Oversight and Review Boards, and those laughably useless Fiduciary Oversight Boards that we have set up in almost every state.

And remember! The silver tsunami is coming and the potential for stealing millions from the estates of those who committed the new age crime of “aging with assets” is here!

From Ken Ditkowsky

—–Original Message—–
From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Mar 9, 2014 6:29 PM
Cc: Kathie Bakken , Eric Holder , probate sharks , Jo Anne M Denison , Cook County States Attorney , Elaine NAsga , sylvia , Lucinda , GLD , Alyece Russell , scott evans , Annie NASGA , Sherrif Dart , ecarter , barbara nasga , “Chief David E.. Dial Naperville” , “Sgt. Tom Kammerer Naperville Police” , ginny johnson
Subject: Re: Follow through on investigation of Adam Stern/Cynthia Farenga.

If Gloria Sykes is accurate in any of the things that she avers, pursuant to 18 USCA 4 the allegations made must be forwarded to law enforcement for investigation.   Schmiedel is not in charge of the accuracy, nor is Mr. Larkin or his IARDC.     
Pursuant to Himmel I am forwarding a copy to this e-mail to the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission as the allegations that Ms. Sykes has made are serious.   
Of course we do not expect the IARDC to do anything other than continue in the ‘cover up’ of the ‘elder cleansing.’       So far it has been silent as to all the allegations of Elder abuse, Financial Exploitation and there is no reason why Mr. Larkin et al would change his attitude and be interested in protecting Mary Sykes (or any other senior) from involuntary assisted suicide.  
I assume that everyone on this list has read the opening statement uttered by the IARDC in the outrageous and ultra vires prosecution of Ms. Denison.     Therein,  Mr. Larkin’s  representative stated that Ms. Denison’s blog is endangering the public just like yelling fire in a crowded threatre.      Indeed, Mr. Holder, Ms. Alvarez, and all law enforcement people who are diligently protecting the public interests and defending the Constitution in the view of the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission are Ethically Challenged and should be disbarred and prohibited from the practice of law.    Thus,  the full weight of the State of Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission is directed by Mr. Jerome Larkin toward the end of protecting the interest of those attorneys who participate in the cottage industry of elder cleansing by elder abuse, financial exploitation of seniors and participating in providing assisted suicide for unwilling participants.
Ms. Sykes’ e-mail should be published!     Do not believe a word she says – do an HONEST intelligent complete and comprehensive investigation. 
Ken Ditkowsky