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. 

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s