If you review the Rules of Discipline for attorneys, there is a rule that the ARDC can get up to $1,000 in costs after they win.
The only problem with Ken’s case is he did nothing wrong. The ARDC accuses him of falsely claiming to represent Mary in a letter to Dr. Patel, but they refuse to link to the letter on their blog, because the letter says the opposite. They then say he lied about judges, but the record in 09 P 4585 is clear the court never served Mary nor her sisters and is sans jurisdiction. This blog publishes those claims of Mr. Ditkowsky and challenges the ARDC and miscreants to support their (bogus) claims, which they simply cannot do. It is all a facade, a house of cards.
So then we ask ourselves, why are they doing this, and we search for health care fraud, insurance fraud, etc. on the internet (and not in Chicago local papers) we find many internet articles on those topics, but the shocker is that HHS.gov and FBI.gov note allegations and convictions in this arena in absolutely astounding amounts of tens of millions of dollars ($90 million for attorney Stillman, $150 million for Omnicare, etc). The real shocker is when you get to elder care and hospice and the level of fraud is absolutely unbelievable.
So, today on the SCOI website (Sup. Ct. of Ill.) Mr. Ditkowsky uploaded the following:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS
In the matter of: ]
Kenneth Ditkowsky ] MR 26516
Respondent ] Commission No. 2012 PR OOO14
RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR COSTS
Now comes Kenneth Ditkowsky and objects to the assessment of costs and raises the Jurisdictional issue herein upon the following basis:
1) Lack of detail and evidence of costs. That the request for costs, while misrepresenting the position of the respondent, does not detail what costs if any are appropriately charged to the respondent. Costs have been narrowly defined and arbitrary assessments are improper.
2) Lack of Jurisdiction. That it is respectfully submitted that costs are particularly improper in these instant proceedings as the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission and the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois lack jurisdiction in this matter. In particular:
a. Lack of Subject Matter jurisdiction: Pursuant to Article 1 Section 4 of the Illinois Constitution of 1970 and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution removed from the State of Illinois (including the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois) the power to regulate the Speech of a citizen (including a lawyer). The FirstAmendment
“is designed and intended to remove governmental restraints from the arena of public discussion, putting the decision as to what views shall be voiced largely into the hands of each of us, … in the belief that no other approach would comport with the premise of individual dignity and choice upon which our political system rests.” Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 24, 91 S.Ct. 1780, 29 L.Ed.2d 284 (1971). As relevant here, the First Amendment safeguards an individual’s right to participate in the public debate through political expression and political association. See Buckley, 424 U.S., at 15. McCutcheon v. F.E.C., 12-536, 2014 WL 1301866 (U.S. Apr. 2, 2014)
The Supreme Court has made it very clear in the cases of United States v. Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. 2537, 183 L. Ed. 2d 574 (2012), Brown v. Entmn’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). McCutcheon v. F.E.C., 12-536, 2014 WL 1301866 (U.S. Apr. 2, 2014) that Government including State, Federal Government, and the Court do not have the power (jurisdiction) to impede, interfere with, or otherwise prevent any citizen (including lawyers) from speaking out as to issues of the day. Elder cleansing including abusive guardianships is a protected topic.
b. 18 USCA 4. It is respectfully suggested that all the matters that the respondent is accused of writing concerning were felonies committed by various persons who the IARDC arbitrarily and wrongfully chose to protect. Indeed, pursuant to Federal Statute the letters that respondent is charged with writing to the Attorney General of the United States, and law enforcement, are required communications. It is respectfully submitted that the Administrator of the IARDC in punishing the respondent with a four year suspension for communication with law enforcement concerning felonies is himself guilty of a violation of 18 USCA 371 and obstruction of justice. It is respectfully submitted that this Court lacks jurisdiction to regulate the compliance or enforcement of Federal Statutes, and cannot by definition engage in conduct that might be interpreted as obstruction of justice.
In short, the Respondent had a duty to report the felonies that are the subject of this disciplinary complaint, he did so, and this Court lacks jurisdiction to impose discipline on him for his compliance with the United States Code section 18 USCA 4 which states:
“Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both” 18 U.S.C.A. § 4 (West)
It therefore follows as the respondent (Ditkowsky) is required pursuant to 18 USCA 4 to risk a three year sentence for not complying with the Federal Statute, his receipt of a four year suspension for complying with the statute is an oxymoron and in derogation of In re Karavidas, 2013 IL 115767, but other jurisdictions
Wherefore, the respondent moves for a denial of the assessment of costs as to the void judgment rendered by this Court punishing respondent for asserting his citizen requirements, a Federal Statute and allowing the petitioner IARDC to infringe on the First. Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, Article 1 Section 4 and Article 1 section 12 of the Illinois Constitution of 1970..
5940 W. Touhy Ave.
Niles, Illinois 60714
 The statement attributed to Mr. Larkin as to respondent’s position is irresponsible and ethically challenged. The Petition for Cert to be filed with the Supreme Court of the United States is presently at the printer and will be forwarded and filed in the Supreme Court when finished.
 The Commission’s charges against Ditkowsky are faulty in that each action is verbal political or content related speech and therefore protected by the First Amendment and Article 1 section 4. Various statutory protections also are present, to wit: 320 ILCS 20/4 (whistle blower protection for individuals (including attorneys) who report elder cleansing offenses). 735 ILCS 110/5, 18 USCA 4.
 The record reveals a number of felonies being reported, to wit: denial of liberty to a senior citizen, unlawful dominion over a senior citizen’s assets (theft), etc. See Gloria Sykes affidavit. This void judgment should be expunged from the record as it is an embarrassment to this Court.
 Respondent has been placed in a catch 22. If he complied with the wrongful demands of the IARDC he would violation 18 USCA 371 and be guilty of Federal obstruction of justice. By complying with the Federal law – as all citizens must – he loses his license to practice law. Article 1 Section 12 of the Illinois Constitution of 1970 is violated.
The next question is, will the $1,000 claim on top of the bogus grueling 2 day trial be just another drop in the fraud bucket for Chicago and the State of Illinois? Is it just a Hershey bar in the arena of health care and elder care fraud dollars churned in this state?