From Ken Ditkowsky

Dear Ms Phelan,
I know from the reactions that I have observed that something is going on.   The information that I have concerning our attorney general is 180% contrary to the press that he gets.   My desire is to believe in him and his integrity.
That said, I was looking over the IARDC file in my case and noted that the irregularities are extremely serious.
1) the IARDC attorneys do not believe that they cannot talk to clients in the opposing camp.   It seems that it is routine to ignore the fact that a person of interest might have an attorney.   (Ms. Black as an example communicated with Ms. Denison even though she was aware that I was representing Ms. Denison.   Of course the attorneys claimed that Gloria Sykes was my client – yet they had no problem in talking to her without my consent etc.   I cannot complain as my assignment in reference to the friends and family had long lapsed – but consistency is not a strong suit at the IARDC.
2) ex parte communications with the trier of fact seem also to be the norm.   We received an order from a “panel” in which the “panel” discloses an ex-parte communication.   A copy of that order will be in the appendix.
3) tampering.   Amongst the documents is a Motion by the IARDC to remove and destroy a document that is part of an exhibit that was admitted into evidence.   The content of the paper that the IARDC desired to remove is irrelevant.   Any document that is admitted into evidence has to undergo the following:
a) examination by staff and attorneys at the IARDC.
b) presentation to opposing counsel – thus, a re-examination of the document by the trial attorneys.
c) examination by opposing counsel – and either approval or rejection.
d) actual presentation of the document to the trier of fact
e) examination by the trier of fact.
f) admission into evidence
g) preservation.
Thus, if a document (in an exhibit) is admitted into evidence it had to run through the hands of the IARDC staff, their two trial attorneys, Mr. Hyman and myself, and the three triers of fact.    If my count is right 6 attorneys and a lay person viewed the exhibit.   If an extraneous document is part of the exhibit what is the probability that it was there prior to its being admitted into evidence?
This is for starters!   It appears that the IARDC under Mr. Jerome Larkin is not only ethically challenged but may have some very serious problems.    The petition to remove a document from an exhibit entered into evidence is about as serious as you can get.   How did the extraneous document get into the exhibit!    It was not there when the document was entered into evidence.   Certainly the trial attorneys at the IARDC representing Mr. Larkin would have discovered it and removed it before they gave it to Larry and me to examine.    If not one of us would have observed it.   Certainly had the document been there when it was presented into evidence one of the members of the hearing panel would have noticed it.  (Unless the result of the hearing was predetermined!)
Assuming the best case scenario it is almost impossible that any document that was not observed by one of the 6 attorneys and one lay person was in the admitted exhibit.   Thus, the conclusion has to be that someone at the IARDC tampered with the evidence after it was admitted.    Tampering with the evidence is such a serious matter that I’ve copied law enforcement and am asking them for an Honest, intelligent complete and comprehensive examination.    This situation is so obscene that it cannot be allowed to be swept under the rug.    Mr. Larkin and the IARDC have set themselves up to be the ‘moral compass’ of the legal profession with the power to over-rule even the Supreme Court of the United States.    Even President Putin does not possess such power.  Of course Putin would not stoop to the outrageous conduct of Mr. Larkin!
(If you have blog – please publish!)   Democracy is not a spectator sport!  The usurpation of a citizen’s rights is a dagger at the heart of our civilization.   It is too bad that every day dozens of senior citizens are dragged off into the morass of abusive guardianships to be isolated, liberated from their savings, and ultimately become victims of involuntary assisted suicide.   It is too bad that the only relief for the victims and their families is platitudes and meaningless rhetoric.  
Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

1 thought on “From Ken Ditkowsky

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s