FBI v. ARDC — Is Atty Gillman good (ARDC website) or bad (FBI/US OIG website)

As a part of the ongoing investigation into health care, hospice fraud, it is interesting to note the following post on the FBI blog:


You will note that an attorney was involved (Seth Gillman of Lincolnwood) and indicted in the ND Illinois Federal Court for falsely targeting and dragging into hospice care dozens of dozens of patients that did not qualify for hospice care.  They were simply “upgraded” to first class because well, easy govt money was left on the table completely unattended, or so they all thought.

Now go ahead and do an “attorney search” at the IARDC and you will note the IARDC has not filed, and there are no charges pending again Atty Seth Gillman. (Presumably because Atty Gillman never spoke out against attorneys and health care fraud and the targeting of seniors as a commodity or get rich quick scheme.  In fact, when one of the employees at one of his companies questioned what was going on and the large bonuses paid to certain personnel–he was quick to tell them to shut the fudge up!  A true leader in the code of attorney silence in fraud).

From the FBI website:  Gillman, an attorney, is the corporate agent, administrator, and one-fourth owner of Passages Hospice LLC, based in west suburban Lisle, and is also the agent and secretary of Asta Healthcare Company Inc., which operates Asta Care Center nursing homes in Bloomington, Colfax, Elgin, Ford County, Pontiac, Rockford, and Toluca, Illinois…… As Passages grew, it divided its operations into geographic regions covering Chicago and the western suburbs, Rockford, Bloomington, and Belleville, with different nurses, nursing directors, and medical directors for each region.


Note the huge level of involvement in the Illinois area–to the point of patient saturation, yet the indictment was from January, and here it is May and you will note the IARDC has not taken any action, even though the scheme began in 2008 to defraud medicare and Gillman was indicted in early 2014–that’s 6 years of silence on this scheme.

No doubt the IARDC would prosecute me for publishing information from the FBI or the US Office of Inspector General, but it remains suspiciously silent on health care fraud allegedly perp’d by atty Gilman which rises to the level of a 70 page affidavit to support his indictment.

How much money is involved in this scheme (remember Omnicare was $150 million, Shinfa Mental Health Care out of Louisanna was $258 million, etc.–see http://oig.hhs.gov/fraud/enforcement/criminal/index.asp for details on millions and millions of dollars lost in fraud in just early 2014 alone!)

What kind of money was Gillman making?:

In fiscal year 2012, Medicare’s daily reimbursement for GIP was $671.84, while the daily payment for routine care was $151.23. According to claims data, from January 2006 to late 2011, Passages submitted claims for approximately 4,769 patients to Medicare and/or Medicaid and was paid approximately $95 million from Medicare and approximately $30 million from Medicaid. Between July 2008 and late 2011, Passages was paid approximately $23 million by Medicare for claimed GIP services, in addition to Medicaid payments for claimed GIP services submitted on behalf of more than 200 patients.

The charges further allege that in the fall of 2008, Gillman began paying bonuses, sometimes well in excess of their salary, to Passages’ directors overseeing nurses and certified nursing assistants based on the amount of GIP under their supervision. Gillman also authorized large bonuses to himself and a co-administrator, Individual A, based on the number of patients per day at certain nursing homes in the Belleville region, including $833,375 to himself between March 2009 and April 2011. The bonuses increased as the number of patients on GIP increased and as the number of facilities counted for the bonuses increased, according to the affidavit.

What is the penalty for health care fraud?

Health care fraud carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine, and obstructing a federal audit carries a maximum of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine, and restitution is mandatory.

Ken and I are publishing this and will continue to analyze the situation because just what kind of scheme did we step into with the likes of the Sykes case (in particular), Gore, Wyman, Drabik, Tyler, and many, many others where the law is X but the courts are doing Y–and they do it with apparent impunity, only punishing severely any attorney that runs a blog (myself), or continues to investigate probate court and issues hundreds of emails, faxes and letters to law enforcement (Ditkowsky) after we were both clearly told by those doing Y when the law is X to shut the fudge up — or else!

Why is the ARDC so silent, and why did atty Gillman operate for years without the IARDC saying a peep and where are they now on this issue?  There must have been complaints filed.

This blog is not going to shut up however, until the law is X and the courts and attorneys in probate are doing exactly X.

The fact that the US Dept of the OIG (Office of Inspector General) is publishing indictments and making clear the level of money to be extracted out of the US health care system–even by Illinois attorneys, certainly is not something the ARDC wants made public when Illinois attorneys are seeing the effects that health care fraud–in the hundreds of millions–has upon the medical field, and it is this fraud and greed which is the root cause of the problems that are spilling over into the court system.

While many, many people fear that single payer health care would simply be far too expensive, after reviewing the indictments made just in early 2014, it is clear that hundreds of millions of dollars are simply going to fraud, and if that fraud were eliminated it would have a huge impact on healthcare for those actually needing it, if doctors and medical professionals all were delivering the real thing–not fraud.  If a huge chunk of the US health care system is fraud, then perhaps by eliminating that, we could afford universal health care for everyone.

The upshot?  While all of this is going on, Atty Gillman is listed as a perfectly good attorney to hire according to the IARDC website.  Ken and myself apparently are not.

What the IARDC says about Ken Ditkowsky:

under information:

Mr. Ditkowsky, who was licensed in 1961, was suspended for four years and until further order of the Court. He made false or reckless statements about the qualifications and integrity of judges presiding over a guardianship matter. In addition, he sent a letter falsely stating that he represented the ward in that proceeding.

Note carefully they do not link to the letter. NEVER LINK TO THE LETTER.  Never let the public know that 1) the letter clearly says he was conducting an investigation and once that was complete he would only then represent Mary G Sykes and 2) his main witness, the Honorable Jane Louis Stuart SUDDENLY  retired on Thursday, May 8, 2014.

Hey look, I can link to the letter:


The question is, why doesn’t the ARDC link to that letter right on the page involved?

Here is the link to Ken Ditkowsky’s page:

http://www.iardc.org/ldetail.asp?id=284805088 — (if link does not work, go to http://www.iardc.org and click on “atty search” and put in “ditkowsky” under “last name”)

I can link to a page to support my blog posts, why don’t they?

Why doesn’t the ARDC mention that the Hon Jane Louis Stuart retired May 8, 2014, or why don’t they publish her testimony during my trial on my ARDC page when she was a main witness?  Why don’t they publish the audio from the court reporter so people can hear what she said and compare it to the transcript?  All of this is technologically possible, even by a grammar school child given the data.  A 2nd grader now knows how to start, run and publish on a blog any sort of PDF, MP3 or MP4 file, etc. but the ARDC does not know how to do this?  Come on now.


She apparently still has a webpage, sans information, why is that?


AND, most notably she is still listed under judges:


I postulate that if I published someone on my website had retired and I did not take it down right away, the ARDC would be all over me to tell the truth promptly, but it looks like the Circuit Court of Cook County, IL, gets the “big free hall pass” on that one.  Teacher always writes a hall pass for her pets.  The rest of the brats like me and Ken have to hold it until recess and stand in line.


MY CONCLUSION: (which is really just a bunch of annoying questions the IARDC will NOT want to answer)

1) Why doesn’t the ARDC website link to the FAMOUS Dr. Patel letter on Ken’s “information page”

2)  Why doesn’t the ARDC mention that Judge Stuart, one of Ken’s and my main witnesses “suddenly” retired on May 8, 2014

3) Why doesn’t the ARDC provide the audio of Judge Stuart’s court testimony so the public can HEAR and COMPARE to the transcript which I previously published?

I can and have linked to all of these above.  THIS BLOG IS TRANSPARENT AND HONEST WHY CAN’T THE IARDC DO THE SAME?



From Ken Ditkowsky–Between a rock and a hard place

From: kenneth ditkowsky <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>
Sent: May 28, 2014 10:24 AM
To: “illinois.ardc@gmail.com” <illinois.ardc@gmail.com>, “IllinoisLawyerNow@isba.org” <illinoislawyernow@isba.org>, “ilsenate29@sbcglobal.net” <ilsenate29@sbcglobal.net>, “ilhouse51@sbcglobal.net” <ilhouse51@sbcglobal.net>, “ilsenate20@sbcglobal.net” <ilsenate20@sbcglobal.net>, “ildbambic@govabuse.org” <ildbambic@govabuse.org>, “illhouse@aol.com” <illhouse@aol.com>, “ilrepmikeboland@aol.com” <ilrepmikeboland@aol.com>, ISBA Main Discussion Group <isba@list.isba.org>, “IllinoisLawyerNow@isba.org” <illinoislawyernow@isba.org>, “isilverstein@senatedem.ilga.gov” <isilverstein@senatedem.ilga.gov>, GLORIA SYKES <gloami@msn.com>, probate sharks <verenusl@gmail.com>, NASGA <nasga.org@gmail.com>, “tips@elderabuseexposed.com” <tips@elderabuseexposed.com>, Tim NASGA <timlahrman@aol.com>, Cook Sheriff <sheriff.dart@cookcountyil.gov>, Chicago Tribune <tips@tribune.com>, Cook County States Attorney <statesattorney@cookcountyil.gov>, Eric Holder <askdoj@usdoj.gov>, matt senator kirk <matt_abbott@kirk.senate.gov>, Mary Richards <maryrichards45@gmail.com>, mary wooley state police <mary_woolery@isp.state.il.us>, SUNTIMES <letters@suntimes.com>, scott evans <scottcevans@hotmail.com>, Diane Nash <sa3456@msn.com>, “ACLU@ACLU.ORG” <aclu@aclu.org>, “Mr. Lanre Amu — honest atty unfairly persecuted by ARDC” <loamu@aol.com>, “acluofillinois@aclu-il.org” <acluofillinois@aclu-il.org>, “Atty Nejla Lane Lane Legal Services. com” <info@lanelegalservices.com>, JoAnne Denison <joanne@denisonlaw.com>, Janet Phelan <writejanet@live.com>, John Howard Wyman <johnhowardwyman@gmail.com>, j ditkowsky <jdit@aol.com>, Harry Heckert <vahrh1135@aol.com>, Kathie Bakken <k_bakken@att.net>, “Mr. Kim” <raywkim@yahoo.com>
Subject: Formal Complaint against Jerome Larkin, Administrator of the IARDC

After reading the Seth Gillman article in Crains and the Sun-times it became very clear meaningful health care is not possible unless that is a concerted effort by members of the public to dissect out the cancer that is eating away at our society.    Elder cleansing is not only here to stay, but has entrenched itself so firmly that the operators of this illegal cottage industry are openly and notoriously intimidating lawyers to keep silent.

As Jerome Larkin has gone to such extreme lengths to try to silence me – a four year suspension from the practice of law for writing to the Attorney General of the United States complaining that a 90 year old widow was being elder cleansed by some miscreant lawyers – it is time for all of us who want to avoid being victims to stand up be counted.    I therefore am filing a formal complaint against Larkin as is my right as a citizen.     The document that was faxed this morning to the IARDC states:

Formal Complaint

re: Jerome Larkin, Administrator, ARDC

Date:  May 28, 2014

To:   Law Enforcement

Subject:  Obstruction of Justice by Mr. Larkin and the IARDC i.e.  Punishing attorneys for compliance with 18 USCA 4.

From:   Kenneth Ditkowsky 5940 W. Touhy Ave, Niles, Illinois 60714,  Kenditkowsky@yahoo.com

Please be advised of the following facts:

18 USCA 4 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)

On or about April 2010, I was engaged to investigate the ‘railroading’ of a senior citizen – Mary Sykes into a guardianship.     My investigation discovered that 755 ILCS 5/11a – 10 the jurisdictional authorization for the guardianship act had not been complied.    In particular, a process required by said 11a – 10 had not been served upon Sykes.    No timely service had occurred.    Close relatives required to be disclosed and timely served had not been disclosed in the petition and not served. (11a – 10(e).)     Thus there had been no jurisdiction obtained.    Mr. Peter Schmiedel admitted that instead of hearing on the issue of Mary’s incompetency some proceeding occurred in relation to a ‘care plan.’     Other irregularities were also noticed.

That Commencing April 2009 a number of citizen complaints had been made to law enforcement and to the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission.    Mr. Larkin is the Administrator of the said commission and earns remuneration from the State of Illinois for administrating the said administrative body.    All documents filed by the said agency appear to be filed in the name of Mr. Larkin pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 137.    Amongst the Citizens who filed complaints was one Gloria Sykes.     Mr. Larkin and attorneys employed by the agency not only ignored the complaints but were discourteous and condescending in their responses.   One response stated that the attorney (Adam Stern) who was the subject of the complaint had been appointed as Ms. Sykes’ guardian ad litem.    The averment was untrue, and 17 days later after Ms. Sykes threatened suit, the senior attorney for the IARDC claimed that the averment was a “typo.”   However, no investigation occurred.     The averments concerning Mr. Stern were serious and involved felonies associated with the cottage industry of elder cleansing.

That numerous efforts were made to silence complaints to law enforcement pursuant to 18 USCA 4 and pursuant to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.    Larkin being aware of the following facts instituted proceedings reasonably calculated intimidate and induce lawyers to ignore their legal, moral, ethical and 18 USCA 4 responsibilities:

Mary Sykes and others were being systematically denied due process and equal protection of the law.    In particular,  the Circuit Court proceedings in case 09 P 4585 were deficient.    a) The petition filed did not make the required disclosures. b) the jurisdictional criteria were ignored – put very bluntly – no jurisdiction was obtained and rather than address this lack of jurisdiction, vacate the void orders, Stern, Farenga, Schmiedel  in concert with Larkin and certain jurists refused to address the issue except in a manner reasonably calculated to intimidate.    As an example – attorney  Ditkowsky was sanctioned by a Court that knew it had no jurisdiction.   The Appellate Court vacated the sanction on this basis. c)  Mary was regularly abused – in particular she was barred from having contact with her two sisters, her younger daughter, her friends, her prior activities.  d) Mary’s estate had been pillaged.   Her safety deposit box had been emptied and the contents removed.  (Not one coin in the million dollars’ worth of coins was inventoried).

Persons who objected to the alleged criminal activities of Attorneys Adam Stern, Cynthia Farenga, Peter Schmiedel, et. al were being harassed, intimidated, and denigrated without any just cause.   In particular, Gloria Sykes was subjected to a denial of due process of law (full faith and credit of a valid judgment) by Judge Connors.   Later on, when she again complained too loudly, she was chained to a chair, threatened, and harassed until she disclosed where she had hidden her personal property.   (It is reported that at first Judge Stuart at first denied under oath this event, but later admitted it)

Attorneys who were engaged to represent the interests of Mary Sykes or the persons who were concerned that Ms. Sykes’ rights were violated were subjected to inappropriate and patently wrongful disciplinary proceedings.

That Attorney JoAnne Denison and Attorney Kenneth Ditkowsky when threatened by Attorney Adam Stern, Cynthia Farenga, Peter Schmiedel, Lea Black,  etc. refused to stop complaining concerning the continuing elder abuse/financial Exploitation (elder cleansing) that Mary Sykes was being subjected.    Ergo, at the direction of Farenga, Stern, Schmiedel, Larkin  and others, disciplinary proceedings were commenced against Ditkowsky and Denison by the IARDC attorneys well knowing that every statement made by either attorney was verified by either an affidavit, testimony in Court, a statement in Court by Farenga, Stern, Schmiedel et. al, or affidavit.      The aforesaid attorneys were also well aware that every statement, every letter, every posting of statements made by the aforesaid attorneys was content related speech protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Article 1 section 4 of the Illinois Constitution and the public policy of the State of Illinois as set forth in 735 ILCS 110/5.

18 USCA 371 states:

If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.  18 U.S.C.A. § 371 (West)

To protect senior citizens and the disabled the Congress of the United States of America has enacted laws to protect citizens including the Elder Justice Act, Americans with Disabilities, 42 USCA 1983 etc.     The breach of fiduciary relationship is a taxable event.   Thus, when a benefit was obtained by the raiding of Mary Sykes’ safety deposit box, or the mining of Alice Gore’s teeth,  Federal Income  taxes became due and payable.   As the items were never inventoried it is assumed and therefore alleged upon reliable information and belief that the Federal Income taxes were not paid.

That Ms. Denison and Mr. Ditkowsky have called upon Mr. Larkin and the IARDC to join with them in calling for an HONEST intelligent complete and comprehensive investigation of the elder cleansing of Mary Sykes and dozens of other senior citizens that have routinely occurred in the State of Illinois and in the United States of America.   Mr. Larkin’s answer has been to prosecute both Ditkowsky and Denison for making said request pursuant to law.

In light of the growing fraud scandals that are being reported in the Hospice industry, the nursing home industry, and the strong suggestions of involvement by lawyers  – and the continued prosecution by the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of lawyers who have spoken out against Judicial corruption  the undersigned herewith files this written demand  and complaint.

The undersigned as citizens of the United States of America and the State of Illinois herewith demand that government including State of Illinois, the United States of America and the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission do an HONEST complete intelligent and comprehensive investigation of the ‘elder cleansing’ cottage industry and in particular the role of Larkin, Stern, Farenga, Schmiedel, Black, and such other and different attorneys who aided and abetted their attempts to obstruct justice and discourage attorneys 18 USCA 4 reports to law enforcement.

Respectfully Submitted.


Kenneth Ditkowsky

This Complaint is also filed against Adam Stern, Peter Schmiedel, Cynthia Farenga, Lea Black and all other attorneys who have participated directly or indirection in the obstruction of justice that has been promulgated by Mr. Larkin and the IARDC in their attempt to Cover –up and impede citizen reporting of felonies to law enforcement.    There is no excuse for Attorneys licensed to practice law to not follow the law as set forth by the SCOTUS in its decisions and/or deny a citizen of his/her First Amendment rights and privileges.

The unsubstantiated allegation has been made that one or more of the miscreants has an investment in the nursing home industry and therefore has an independent profit from the elder cleansing industry.




I retain no copyright on this document and give my permission to whomever desires to copy, republish post etc.  My desire is to motivate all the victims of elder cleansing and their families to pursuant to 18 USCA 4 report the violations of the law to law enforcement, name names, and specify the acts of elder cleansing.


All attorneys as well as all public officials take an oath to defend the Constitution.    Part of defending the constitution is to root out those who are denying our fellow citizens of their Constitutional rights.    When MS orchestrated the mining of Alice Gore’s teeth for the gold filings each of us was made poorer!    We substantially lost our because each one of us did not report to law enforcement this outrageous act of stealing the gold out of the teeth of a senior citizen.   I personally lost out in that I did not write a letter to Mr. Larkin – which he would have ignored – demanding an HONEST complete and comprehensive investigation of attorney MS and her role is this disgusting event.  (The fact I was not educated concerning the event at the time is irrelevant as such went on in my City, my community and could have effected those I love).


Ken Ditkowsky


From Ken Ditkowsky on Obstruction of Justice 18 USC 1512

Subject: Fw: WestlawNext – § 1512. Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant – complaint against Jerome Larkin for ethical violations in addition to his failure to file State of Illinois Disclosure statements.

 The pattern of obstruction of justice is evident in the disciplinary proceedings illegally conducted by Mr. Larkin and his attorneys. to wit: 
1) the prosecution of Amu, Denison, and myself is an obvious assault in the First Amendment and therefore clearly a violation of 18 USCA 1512.
2) the fiasco orchestrated by Senior attorney Lea Black to discourage Gloria Sykes from testifying is clear tampering with a witness that would be unacceptable in any Court – but was condoned by the IARDC panel.   This tampering includes the disclosure of her improper conversations with Attorney Brodsky – who was Gloria’s lawyer until she refused to pay him any sums in excess of the dollars that he had already received.
3) the letter from a senior attorney at the IARDC claiming that Adam Stern had been appointed as GAL for Gloria Sykes (17 days after Gloria threatened suit the letter became a typo – but no investigation of either the letter or Stern followed)
4) the chaining of Gloria Sykes to a chair to extract information as to where her assets were hidden.  (The denial by the Judge, and later her admission of the truth of the statement – is more obstruction)   The ‘cover up’ by Larkin of this event is chilling.
5) the refusal of the IARDC to either join in the call for an investigation or conducting an investigation of Stern, Farenga, Schmiedel or Solo = but instead conducting prosecution of attorneys who complained.   This is official misconduct on the part of Larkin.
6) extra-judicial proceedings conduct by Larkin in direct violation of Article 1 section 4 of the Illinois Constitution.  It appears that ex-parte communications between Larkin (his attorneys) and panel members charged with adjudication is common.
7) extra judicial proceedings in an assault on the First Amendment.  Even a pre-teen interested in going to High School knows or should know that all citizens have a right to communicate amongst themselves and to petition the government.   Larkin in his prosecutions of attorneys just ignores the protections of the Constitution.
*)  Other an different actions
equal protection of the law mandates that Mr. Larkin and all who acted in concert with him (18 USCA 371) are guilty of obstruction of justice.    The crimes that we are charging Larkin with are very serious!   Mr. Larkin by his blatant attempts at intimidation has violated a public trust.   
Larkin as an attorney is well aware that his prosecutions of Denison, Amu, and myself are patently wrongful and should never have been commenced.   The continuation is deceitful and a breach of the public trust.
We have as before suggested that law enforcement give no credence to anything that I or any of other who are victims of the assaults on our First Amendment Rights state.   We ask only for an HONEST intelligent complete and comprehensive investigation and if unbiased law enforcement finds that the elder abuse allegations are accurate that Larkin, Stern, Farenga, Solo, Schmiedel and the others who aided and abetted these felonies be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. 
Pursuant to Himmel a copy of this e-mail has been forwarded to the IARDC .    This e-mail is a complaint against Larkin and the attorneys who were engaged in the prosecution of Denison, Amu, Ditkowsky and all other attorneys who have reported corruption to law enforcement.   This complaint cannot be swept under the rug by suggestion that Larkin refinanced his home.  – The complaint has been an is that Larkin aided and abetted the felonies of elder cleansing, assaulted the First Amendment and actively engaged in obstruction of justice in using his position as Administrator of the IARDC to impose a code of silence on attorneys and prevent attorneys from compliance with 18 USCA 4.
Ken Ditkowsky

Dorothy Brown and the Inspector General for the Circuit Court are very, very good friends.

And while I have wondered why back in 2000 when the Federal Courts went to Pacer and I talked with their staff and they said that they could easily convert the Circuit Courts of Cook County to Pacer, but they weren’t interested, comes one good possible explanation.



Apparently the Inspector General for the Court System contributes to the campaign of funds of Dorothy Brown!

This particular article from the Sun Times suggests an ethics violation, and so does the Better Government Assn who is bringing this to the public’s attention.

In re Kendall–3rd circuit–Clear and present danger Speech explained

Dear Readers;

One of the issues my trial stated out with was Atty Melissa Smart of the ARDC going on and on about how my blog is like “yelling fire in a crowded theater” which, I believe, is fairly akin to the Nelson 7th circuit case wherein 2 Aldermen in Chicago (Bobby Rush and Dorothy Tillman) entered the Art Institute of Chicago — one brandishing a gun– and claimed that a painting depicting former Mayor Harold Washington in ladies undies and a garter belt “would incite riots” in the street of Chicago, making that speech a “clear and present danger.”

So when and why is speech a “clear and present danger”.  Is there any belief amongst reasonable people out there that this blog in any means or manner could ever incite any sort of violent action, other than perhaps a paper cut? (pixels generally don’t damage anyone or anything, except maybe a backache from carrying a too heavy laptop so you would have to print it out to get even a paper cut).

In re Kendall, a 3rd circuit case, explains the standard Atty Smart was trying to invoke.  The only problem is, I don’t know of a single disciplinary case at any level–where a lawyer was able to incite a riot or any sort of violence other than the Civil War of 1860 and that involved slavery of a huge chunk of the United States.  Even the suffrage and women’s movement was not particularly successful in creating any riots or wars.  So what then is Atty Smart even talking about?

The concept, while largely unused (and certainly not for a blog or an atty not involved in any case but only commenting upon it) is explained in this case In re Kendall


In the realm of speech about ongoing judicial
proceedings, the government’s authority as sovereign
provides only limited power to criminally punish speech by
those outside the judicial system. As the Supreme Court
made clear in a trio of cases involving members of the
press held in criminal contempt for their news stories, speech
about ongoing judicial proceedings is criminally punishable
only if it poses a clear and present danger of obstructing or
prejudicing the ongoing proceedings. Craig, 331 U.S. at 372,
67 S.Ct. 1249; Pennekamp v. Florida, 328 U.S. 331, 348, 66
S.Ct. 1029, 90 L.Ed. 1295 (1946); Bridges v. California, 314
U.S. 252, 260–63, 62 S.Ct. 190, 86 L.Ed. 192 (1941); see
*826 also Standing Comm. on Discipline of U.S. Dist. Court
for Cent. Dist. of Cal. v. Yagman, 55 F.3d 1430, 1442 (9th
Cir.1995). The government has greater authority to discipline
speech about an ongoing judicial proceeding, though, when

the speaker is an attorney involved in that proceeding. See
Gentile, 501 U.S. at 1075, 111 S.Ct. 2720. Because the
attorney is likely to be viewed as “especially authoritative”
and his statements are more “likely to influence the actual
outcome of the trial,” the government has an overriding
interest in limiting the attorney’s prejudicial comments to
preserve the litigants’ constitutional rights to an impartial jury.
Id. at 1074–75, 111 S.Ct. 2720. Consequently, the attorney’s
speech is subject to discipline at a lower threshold: when it is
substantially likely to prejudice the proceedings. Id. at 1075,
111 S.Ct. 2720.

The only thing this blog has done is call for an investigation.  It has pointed out a court that does X when the law is clearly Y.  How that prejudices a proceeding is unknown to anyone at this time.

The ARDC wants to use a different standard, and that is any speech THEY deign to not like must be disciplined.  Two little problems with that are the free speech provisions of both the US and Illinois constitutions even they are sworn to uphold — and this becomes yet one more example of a government body doing X when the laws are clearly Y.

But that is a “blame the media” solution to their problem of reporting on what is going on in court–courtrooms where the attorneys reporting and commenting on the case have no appearance on file and are acting as bystanders to the proceeding.  Further, there is no prejudice to any of these cases:  Gore, Wyman, Sykes, Spera, etc. because there is no jury involved.  Presumably judges can spot bias and interpret the laws on their own, thank you very much.  They must avoid reading legal blogs with commentary about their own cases.  Judge Stuart said she did not read this blog.  Now she is retired, she can read it all she wants.

So what does this court have to say about a judge’s opinion that was denoted as

” The opinion characterized the Virgin Islands
Supreme Court’s reasoning as erroneous, “improper,” having
“no rational basis,” lacking “merit,” and “making no sense.”
In re Kendall, S.Ct. Misc. No. 2009–0025, 2011 WL
4852282, at *4 & n. 6 (V.I. Oct. 12, 2011). Indeed, the
opinion went so far as to say that the writ of mandamus “was
apparently sought and issued to facilitate [Bethel’s] blatant
misconduct and perpetrate a fraud on the [Superior] Court.”
Id. at *4 n. 6. Its issuance, Kendall wrote scathingly, was
therefore “contrary to law and all notions of justice.” Id.

but the ruling of the 3rd court was as follows:

we hold that the First Amendment protects a sitting judge from being criminally punished for his opinion unless that opinion presents a clear and present danger of prejudicing ongoing proceedings. Kendall’s opinion did not pose such a threat. We also agree with Kendall that there is insufficient evidence that his recusal was pretextual. Consequently, we will reverse the Virgin Islands Supreme Court’s judgment and vacate all of Kendall’s contempt convictions.

It is hard to see anything happening other than that.  Atty Kendall worked as a prosecutor and found a number of problems with the conviction of a certain criminal defendant.  At some point in time later, the case came back to him now as a sitting judge.  He then  wrote a scathing opinion on the plea bargain involved.  A new set of prosecutors and judges charged him with criminal contempt at the state appellate level.  The case eventually ended  up in the 3rd circuit where those Justices upheld the first Amendment and reversed Judge Kendall’s criminal contempt conviction.

Nonetheless, the standard, even for attorneys commenting on a case is good law.  The First Amendment requires that comments made by judge or attorney must present a “clear and present” danger.  While the ARDC does not like that Gloria Sykes, John Wyman Ken Ditkowsky and many, many others (Lisa Belanger, Rosanna Miller, Janet Phelan) have commented on cases and published on this blog where the law is X and the court did Y, none of this in a million years, even with stretching the truth like a weather balloon, could produce the resultant effect of this blog ever being a “clear and present danger” to anything or anyone.  It pretty much repeats what the litigants have said, and why they are extremely unhappy and it also explains why many of them have PTLD (post traumatic litigation disorder) and behave as probate victims do (fearful of attorneys, judges, court tied in or appointed personnel, etc.)

In re Kendall is very good case law.  The only question is, why the ARDC is doing X to Ken and I and Mr. Lanre Amu when First Amendment law is Y.


Ken Ditkowsky on Fiduciary Duty

To: Tim NASGA , JoAnne Denison
Cc: j ditkowsky , Tim NASGA , GLORIA SYKES , Janet Phelan
Subject: Breach of Fiduciary Relationships

While I am not an expert on Indiana law, I am confident in pointing out the following facts:
1) A fiduciary does not have ad hoc authority.   The Fiduciary has to act in the objection best interests of the ward.  This means that a fiduciary’s conduct is going to be examined by the ‘clear light of hindsight.’    It also means that a fiduciary cannot act in his/her best interests to the detriment of the ward.
2) Any benefit the fiduciary receives is a taxable event.
3) governmental operatives (such as judges, guardians, et al) are not afforded immunity to violate the law.   That does not mean that every wrong has to be addressed – there is a degree of discretion but that is also tempered by the clear light of hindsight.
(To give you an example – Jerome Larkin and the IARDC have received a delegation from the Illinois Supreme Court to regulate certain attorney conduct.   For instance, the wrongful appointment of a guardian so that particular individuals are given an advantage in the resolution of a dispute (your situation) would come under Larkin’s attorney had it occurred in Illinois).   18 USCA 4 provides that felonies have to be reported to law enforcement – it is a criminal act not to make such a report.   Thus, had Larkin learned about the attorneys who used a guardianship to usurp your interest in the ‘corporation’ he might because of too great a case loan have decided to over-look the problem, but he could not overlook his statutory obligation to report the matter to law enforcement.
Of course if Larkin decided to conduct a parochial investigation of any portion of the matter, the discretion would now translate into an abuse of discretion.   Simply put – subordination of perjury in the form of looking for excuses for the miscreants is another criminal act – i.e a violation of 18 USCA 371.    (This does not mean that RICO, Mail Fraud, Wire Fraud et al may also have occurred.)
It thus appears that the ‘res judicata’ effect created by ‘wired judges’ not only does not release the miscreant, but inculpates the judge and those who have a duty to act.    It is for that reason that as we discuss the abusive guardianship situation pursuant to 18 USCA 4.  I copy Mr. Holder and the Justice Department.  I expect that General Holder is reporting the tax evasion to the Department of the Treasury.
The miscreants who have taken it upon themselves to separate you from your assets have some very serious Income tax problems in addition to their other problems.   Where fiduciary relationship are involved CYA is not a good idea – it can haunt you for a lifetime.
Once again – laws have to be enforced to have meaning.   People such as Larkin have the idea that their position and clout make them safe.   Heretofore such might have been an accurate assessment; however, the world has changed.  Health care costs are artificially high due to a massive fraud factor (70- 80%).    The fastest growing segment of the population is the elderly.  Thus, it is either enforce the law to the n’th degree against Larkin and those he acts in concert with – or America becomes a 3rd world country.
Enforcing the law as it is written and requiring Larkin, Stern, Farenga, Schmiedel, Solo et al to obey the Rule of Law is essential to the survival of our Institutions and of  American survival.   Larkin’s covering up for the elder cleansing of Mary Sykes is a form of treason!   The fact that he is so RESISTANT  to an honest, complete and comprehensive investigation is clear and convincing evidence of his covert assistance of Farenga, Stern, et al.    It also aids and abets the health care crisis and subverts all efforts to provide to the public meaningful health care reforms.  (The 1.5 million of funds that disappeared from the Gore estate et al – went somewhere!)
Ken Ditkowsky


From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: May 25, 2014 9:10 PM
To: j ditkowsky , Harry Heckert , Larry Chambers , Jo Anne M Denison , NASGA , probate sharks , Eric Holder , Cook County States Attorney , Cook Sheriff , “illinois.ardc@gmail.com” , ISBA Main Discussion Group
Subject: Elder Cleansing Scandal

 I was informed that the hospice portion of the elder cleansing scandal that was in the newspaper is indeed related.   The local miscreant is Seth Gilman.
If the information that I received a few moments ago is accurate, the investigation is alive and well and the material that Mr. Jerome Larkin and the IARDC have disciplined me for forwarding pursuant to 18 USCA 4 to law enforcement does indeed suggest a culpability pursuant to 18 USCA 371 on the part of Larkin and those who acted in concert with him.
If the information that I received is accurate it is now very clear why the IARDC was so upset with the correspondence to the Justice Department and why I received a four year suspension.
It appears that the persons named in the article that I forwarded this afternoon are relatives of Gilman.   Our miscreant friends all follow the same pattern as Mr. R outlined in his deposition.
Ken Ditkowsky


And now from Ohio–the media admits troubles in the Guardianship Arena



Does all this sound familiar to you probate victims out there and in particular, Rosanna Miller from Ohio who has tried every trick in book, up to a writ of habeus corpus to protect her parents from abusive guardianships.  She has worked tirelessly, has not found a pro bono attorney to help her, and yet her case was grossly unfair.

you can easily see dozens of articles on her case by googling “rosanna miller ohio corrupt guardianship.”

Let’s keep her and her father (alive) and mother (passed over) in our hearts, minds and prayers and that Rosanna sees justice soon.