From Ken Ditkowsky

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: May 12, 2014 10:04 AM
To: Tim NASGA , Bill , probate sharks , JoAnne Denison , NASGA , Tim NASGA , Janet Phelan , Harry Heckert , j ditkowsky , “”
Subject: Fw: Hey, your name is missing from this petition to overturn Citizens United and McCutcheon

If you need an exhibit 1 as to why we have been so ineffective this attached e’mail and its appropriate exercise of First Amendment rights provides a clear and present example.   (yes – even advocating that we be stripped of our First Amendment Rights is protected speech!)
The premise of most assaults on the First Amendment and the assaults on the right to dissent from the policy and practice of government is that the persons temporarily in power have the inside track on what is ‘good for us!’ and that whatever activity or speech that they feel threatens their agenda provides a clear and present danger akin to fire in a crowded theater.
During JoAnne’s hearing one of Larkin’s attorneys actually equated her Blog to yelling fire in a crowded theater.
George Soros (one of 1%) an icon of the left participated in the funding and creation of “move on” to counter the influence of the ‘tea party.’  Couching themselves as ‘grass roots’ organizations both perform extremely valuable services as they force people to take a look at government not only from the center, but from the extremes.   Like the democrats and republicans each has an agenda that may not serve our parochial needs but is worth consideration in an ideal world.
It is not in our interests to be ‘rote’ followers of any point of view.   The common cause that keeps us together is the single fact that each of us is a (direct or indirect) target of the miscreants conducting the war of the elderly and the disabled.   Some of us will accomplish our goals and defeat the bad guys by an HONEST complete intelligent and comprehensive investigation of the failure of the State and Federal governments to enforce the guardianship laws.   Others by other remediation such as defeating members of the political elite at the polls.  The blocking of our avenues of communication by the miscreants is a defeat for all of us.
The Supreme Court has taken the position that government, no matter what guise it adopts cannot defeat speech.   Thus, when you or I call for an investigation of Alice Gore’s teeth being mined for their gold filings Mr. Larkin is off base and violating our constitutional rights when he attempts to stop us!    Larkin however has an absolute right to petition to law enforcement to investigate us, to speak out that we are ***** etc.    His agency also has a right to refer us to law enforcement.   The only thing he cannot do is use the color of law which his agency enjoys to attempt to silence us!   The distinctions are subtle = however, they are important.
The life of every American citizen depends on honest government that respects the First Amendment even when it it allows speech that we -for whatever reason – think might subvert America.
In throwing this stone, I have to admit that my offenses in this regard are major and in a sense I am getting some of my own medicine. I have on more than one occasion failed to protect another citizen’s First Amendment Rights.
when I first obtained my license, I was designated the Secretary of Rug Cleaner’s Association.  In my job I had occasion to receive all sorts of mail.  The American Nazi party delighted in sending me terrible publications that equated Jews to devils.   I was irritated by the mailings, and relieved upon Barnkarnis (sp) vs. Illinois (group libel) to contact my representative and demand he join with me in silencing the National Socialists.   He did, however, law enforcement read the Constitution and suggested that I pound sand.
My opportunity however came and I jumped to it.   The Nazis made a death threat.   They threatened a Judge.   The City attorney assigned to his courtroom asked me to meet with the Judge and I suggested an extra-judicial solution.   The city issued building violations against the owner of the building that housed the party headquarters.    After being forced to move several times the point was made.   The harassment generated was sufficient to make  a strong suggestion and while it did not put them out of business their mailings ceased and they were not so ready to identify themselves.
When the Nazi march on Skokie was announced I advised my clients to let them March; however, make certain that they marched on empty streets.    I said pay them no attention and spread the word – get everyone off the street.    I was outvoted and many of my clients armed themselves and decided that the March was to be a turkey shoot.   Fortunately, the March was cancelled and the Civil Liberties Union went to court to force Skokie to issue a permit.
The Illinois Supreme Court in a highly unpopular decision upheld the First Amendment and essentially told us to ‘pound sand.’   A few hot heads (including several of my clients) still wanted to ‘bag’ a Nazi, but when the March went off few attended.
My personal role in assaulting the First Amendment still does no inspire confidence in my personal devotion to the core values of America; however, I do know that I was wrong.   I am not proud of the fact that I had so little confidence in democracy.    The issue that I face to day is what I would do if the KKK or the National Socialists were to try to march today?  I know what I should do!  But would I?
Ken Ditkowsky
From Joanne;
The best thing to do when faced with evil and oppression, IS TO IGNORE IT!  Do NOT give it any energy.  That’s why you should never go to “anti-war” or “anti-violence” or “anti-” anything.
The better path is to attend, but speak out for patience, love, peace, kindness and understanding. That’s what the Hippie did in the 60’s and it was very effective.  Women’s liberation was for the women and equality and not to make anyone suffer.
It does matter how you phrase things.  You want to tell people they can do better, they can speak better they care care more.  If certain political groups march and no one shows up, they will give up.  If they have headquarters in a building that is not up to code, pointing out the defects and how to repair them will take care of that.
We want our courts to be better and do better, we want the GAL’s to care about what they do and visit their wards, the sick, the homeless and those in need and care for them lovingly.
The US Supreme Court, however, is taking the right approach. In a free and open democracy the people must be able to say what they must.  That means that there will be some negative elements that will speak out, but if enough good people band together (and it doesn’t take many) the light from those good persons will easily overcome the other darkness.
We want people to have free will and we want people to be able to make choices because that’s how we learn.  No one is perfect and we are all human.  But part of the human learning experience is to be given choices to see how those work out and in participating in that process will will learn and grow.

More good news–Cir. 7th Federal Appellate Brief filed AND accepted!

Dear Readers;

As many of you might know, Ken and I have been working on our appellate brief to the 7th circuit court of appeals.  Ken and I filed a civil rights suit independent of our ARDC disciplinary proceedings complaining about the fact 1) all we did was engage in political speech and wrote the authorities and our friends and other probate victims to complain what is going on in the court system is not fair and not right; 2)  I started a blog (this blog) which posted communicated from myself, Ken, Gloria and others to protest the probate court abuses where the court was regularly not following the law, was ignoring Powers of Attorney, and was paying big bucks to favored attorneys and tied in case managers and such and depleting estates leaving seniors worse off than if they had never gone into the probate system.

I readily admit that I and this blog are not perfect.  I don’t have all the solutions, but when I see that Mary Sykes’ estate went $250k+ to attorneys, $1 million in gold coins fell off the inventory (please send me ideas of how to investigate this) and cash in the mattress of $40k is gone, I start to see red.  I have many, many complaints from alleged “wards” that their estates are gone, they were told to live in a nursing home when they did not want to, they escaped and lived on the lamb for a couple of years but their estates were billed $20k or more, they had a house and bank account but were told they had to live in a nursing home, families were isolated from the seniors, seniors drugged against their will–wrongfully, it just brings me to tears.  I don’t get it.  No one warned me about this in law school.

Getting back to the subject at hand (boy, this truly is a blog, stream of consciousness) the brief, Ken says, just wrote itself.  And that’s the way it should be when the majority of the cases are on your side.

My favorite case quotes?

This court has recognized that the Supreme Court “indicates that the First
Amendment does not authorize restrictions on “pure speech” merely for the purpose of protecting judges from criticism. E.g., Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252, 273, 62 S.Ct. 190, 86 L.Ed. 192 (1941), Chicago Council of Lawyers v. Bauer, 522 F. 2d 242, 257 (7 Cir. 1975). Emphasis added

An appellate Court must independently examine the entire record in First
Amendment cases to ensure that ‘a forbidden intrusion on the *496 field of free
expression’ has not occurred.”

“At the very least, [the] cases recognize that disciplinary rules governing the
legal profession cannot punish activity protected by the First Amendment,
and that First Amendment protection survives even when the attorney
violates a disciplinary rule he swore to obey when admitted to the practice of
law.” Gentile.

The First Amendment reflects ‘a profound national commitment to the
principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and
wide-open.” New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270, 84 S.Ct. 710,
11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964). That is because “speech concerning public affairs is
more than self-expression; it is the essence of self-government.” Garrison v.
Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64, 74–75, 85 S.Ct. 209, 13 L.Ed.2d 125 (1964).
Accordingly, “speech on public issues occupies the highest rung of the
hierarchy of First Amendment values, and is entitled to special protection.”
Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138

The First Amendment was “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) (Emphasis added).

It is, however, 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.

(“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.,

“[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,

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,

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 (US 1803)

It hardly needs elaboration to make it clear that the question of the total
insufficiency of the evidence to sustain a serious charge of professional
misconduct, against a backdrop of the claimed constitutional rights of an
attorney to speak as freely as another citizen, is not one which can be
subsumed under the headings of local practice, customs or law.” In re
Sawyer, 360 U.S. 622, 640 (1955)

The point is not that there is no such thing as truth or falsity in these areas or
that the truth is always impossible to ascertain, but rather that it is perilous
to permit the state to be the arbiter of truth. United States v. Alvarez

“A federal court need not abstain, however, if the plaintiff shows that the
proceedings were instituted in bad faith or as harassment, or if there are
other “extraordinary circumstances” justifying federal judicial intervention.
See, e.g., Id. at 435, 437, 102 S.Ct. 2515; Younger, 401 U.S. at 53, 91 S.Ct. 746.
As noted above, *1273 where a federal plaintiff alleges bad faith, harassment,
or extraordinary circumstances, a court may consider evidence outside the
four corners of the complaint. See, e.g., Stein, 272 F.Supp.2d at 1263 n. 3.”
Thompson v. Florida Bar, 526 F. Supp. 2d 1264

Now, watch, if the miscreants (defendants) file any case law quotes, you can bet they will not be of the same quality.  The ARDC has consistently cited case law against my self and Ken that either consists of trial court or lower level decisions (which are not supposed to be cited), or they will mis-cite decisions which normally would be a major issue for an attorney.  So let’s see what they will cite.

they now have 30 days to file a responsive brief.

The most interesting thing about federal appellate court?  If you don’t file your brief on time, they consider it grounds for disciplinary action!  That’s pretty amazing.  I don’t know if I agree but it certainly would help to provide therapy for those that have a completion issue.

Here is the brief:


Breaking News — Judge Stuart suddenly retires today!

Dear Readers;

Today I was in Judge Stuart’s courtroom and there were many, many pretty flowers on her desk.  I thought it was her birthday, which is very nice.  BUT then about 50 or more people came into her courtroom at noon, with a huge cake and I was told she is retiring.

The only thing I can say, is I WISH HER WELL!  I understand she will have a generous pension, and she can move on to new things.

This blog is not about being mean, nasty or rehashing bad prior decisions (we all make mistakes, including and esp. me), it is about making sure the courtrooms are fair and just for everyone.

I know there have been a lot of complaints about Judge Stuart.  A lot from Gloria Sykes who believes she was treated majorly unfairly (and I believe she was and the case deserves a thorough, complete and honest investigation), but a sitting elected judge does deserve respect.

I wish Judge Stuart well and I hope that she will be filled with love, compassion, honesty, courage and understanding.  She still has a law license and she can do a whole lot of good for the poor, the homeless and those in need.  Let’s hope she will be start a new life in that vein.




Federal law vs. State Law, who holds the trump card?

For those of you out there who are looking to better understand how state and federal laws interact, here is a good basic article on the pre emption doctrine as applied to federal vs. state law:

Also, Alyece has us considering a new legal theory of interest (I think this will ring quite a bell for many of you in the probate horror system)–“abuse of rights”.

from Wikipedia:

The prohibition of chicane is known as the abuse of rights (German Wikipedia link) in German law (BGB §226).

The Swiss Civil Code states “The manifest abuse of a right is not protected by law.”

At least one of four conditions is required to invoke the doctrine:[1]

  • the predominant motive for exercising the right is to cause harm
  • no serious or legitimate motive exists for exercising the right
  • the exercise of the right is against moral rules, good faith, or elementary fairness
  • the right is exercised for a purpose other than that for which it was granted.

The principle does not exist in the Anglo-Saxon system.[citation needed]


so let me fast case that in Illinois.  And I find nothing.  With an “all jurisdiction” search I find 241 cases talking about “abuse of rights”, and most are in Lousiana–which is Napoleonic Code!

for those of you with access to Westlaw or Nexus or another legal searching system, you might want to look into the tort of “abuse of rights” if you are embroiled in a typical, malicious probate case.

thanks, Alyece for bringing up this legal theory which I had not heard of before, being from Illinois where there are no cases on this theory.


New York Law Students Criticize union busting efforts by a NYU Trustee and received subpoenas in return

And in the popular vein of if you have money and you’re the big guy, push to keep the union out of your company via nefarious means,  engage in union busting, and if law students were involved, please serve them subpoenas for all their texts, emails and faxes which refer, relate to or will lead to evidence regarding their union related activities!

See, NY times article:

Two law students at New York University criticized one NYU trustee regarding his union busting activities.  This particular Trustee also donates $1 million to the law school, but that doesn’t stop him from going after NYU law students supporting unions.

At first, the law school said they would not get involved, but then it footed the students’ legal assistance in this matter.

No courage shower there.

Other articles reveal the Trustee resigned over the hullabaloo.  His institute focused on “racial, ethnic and economic segregation” to promote law and justice, but it’s not clear if union busting is part of those loft goals.

Another university Trustee simply doesn’t know or understand basic constitutional rights.



From Ken Ditkowsky–Our appeal to the 7th circuit based on the First Amendment!

While the ARDC is telling everyone that attorneys do not have First Amendment rights to reveal, discuss and disclose information regarding troubles and issues in the court system, Ken has done a wonderful, wonderful job on explaining how court system issues are actually political or content oriented speech–speech which should be given the highest protection in the US under the Bill of Rights because it is essential to a free and open democracy.

This blog has repeatedly explained the difference between private trash talk (saying your married neighbor is a slut, is actionable, saying that he or she swindled someone in their business or trade when they did not is likewise actionable, and of course you cannot bully, stalk or threaten anyone with a crime against person or property, that too is actionable).

But talking about, discussing, revealing, studying and revealing and disclosing information relating to public figures clearly is not and it is fair game.  Not only that, it is essential to a free and open democracy.

Recently in People vs. Clark, 2014 IL 115776 (SCOI 2014) the court struck down Illinois eavesdropping law. I have no idea why any of the circuit courts are stopping anyone from bringing in laptops or recording devices, that is now their right, so please write or fax the Hon. Tim Evans and Sheriff Dart of Cook County and remind them of that and demand your rights, that is, until the Illinois state legislature can draft an anti-recording statute that will withstand a facial constitutional challenge.  For a great article which appeared in the ISBA magazine this month, see

Best quote from that article:

“Until the state legislature crafts a new law, people are now free to tape whatever they’d like, whether the conversation is private or public.”

And of course, I hear many, many complaints, and have experienced it myself that transcripts are changed in favor of favored attorneys and courts (see this blog re Judge Stuart’s testimony and Gloria’s handcuffing for further information), so I have to say it’s a very, very good thing people can record in court.  Further, what average person making $8 to $12 per hour can afford a transcript from a court reporter at $4 a page–the going rate in Cook County?  Is it fair that only the rich can prove justice.  I don’t think so.  I think if you are middle class to poor, your transcripts should be available at reduced price. Justice Kilbride of SCOI has asked why the average person does not turn to the courts for justice resolution, and this blog has stated why over and over.  The filing fees are too high, no one can afford transcripts, the proceedings are lengthy, stilted and greatly skewed in favor of those that have lawyers or have good experience in court proceedings.

Back to the subject at issue, there are still many of you out there speaking the truth regarding your court cases, you get slapped with a defamation suit, you try to use 750 ILCS 110 1/2 and you get no where.  The frustrating complaint is not dismissed.

You might want to try your next motion with a bit of case law and argument from Ken’s brief we filed yesterday:




Up to $6 million might have been lost by a probate attorney into his own accounts

While it is very, very sad this attorney got involved in such underhanded and devious conduct to bilk the elderly and disabled persons of Arizona, he obviously isn’t as creative as the complaints we have heard from the cases of Sykes ($1 million, Gore $1.5 to $3 million), Tyler (up to $9 million) which somehow fell off of inventories and accountings through the probate court system and which are not investigated and the ARDC and the likes of CF, AS and PS work to keep it that way (see their letters to the ARDC in which they urge that attorneys reporting on corruption–myself and Ken–be disciplined while complaints against them are simply “unfounded.’  Chicago attorneys are much, much better at draining and depleting estates with the stamp  of a judge and his or her pen than this low level crook of an attorney in Maricopa County, Arizona.

I’ve just heard and seen waay too many complaints of estates depleted through the “legal mechanism” of large probate attorneys fees and GAL fees–GAL’s that hang onto a case well after the Plenary Guardian is appointed and who chime in with clearly biased motions and petitions, not always in the best interests of the ward.

In Sykes, for example, PS has openly admitted to $200k in fees and Gloria says PS has already taken a chunk of change.

Now PS of course blames it on everyone but him and his firm.  He blames it for sure on Gloria, but he and the ARDC have alleged that this blog makes Gloria file pleadings (she has repeatedly and flatly denied this saying she uses her own stuff, paralegals and other free lawyers), and Gloria frequently notes for the record that the problem is with the court in taking jurisdiction where it has none, allowing the Plenary Guardian to sell the mother’s home at a huge discount, etc.

Whatever the cause, whatever the reason, I propose that if he had been a Chicago attorney, he could have done this legally and through the billing practices and policies of the 18th floor with his own billings and firm and his new clothing most likely would never turn into an orange jumpsuit.

One probate attorney this blog has investigated owns a huge rolling estate with a home valued at $2 million in the suburbs of Chicago, and another home in California.  No surprise there. 

The easiest solution that the ARDC and Tim Evans should push to stop these abuses is clearly volunteer based guardianships.    Maybe not all GAL’s and probate attorneys can be volunteers, but surely we can try to get as many as possible and put them on cases where court appointed attorney and agency fees are starting to spiral out of control.

There are other jurisdictions that have switched to volunteers to manage estates and control fees, and this has been a workable solution.


From Ken Ditkowsky–rereading the turmoil of what Gloria has been thru

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: May 1, 2014 9:25 AM
To: Kathie Bakken , scott evans , Don Johnson , Tim NASGA
Subject: Sykes vs Farenga et al

The January 1 letter from the IARDC refusing to investigate Adam Stern on the basis of Adam Stern being Gloria’s GAL takes on a quite different light now that the Jan 28 Farenga letter to the IARDC has come to the surface.  
I re-read some of Gloria’s e-mails of the last couple of days and have again developed some empathy for her.   What she is going through is a travesty and intolerable in a democratic society.  The January 28 letter from Farenga to the IARDC is beyond contempt.   Farenga has the temerity to brag about her unconscionable and wrongful conduct.  She details the human trafficking of Mary Sykes (de-facto court proceedings without jurisdiction), theft of property court orders sans due process or procedural safeguards, and defamation – i.e statement of Gloria’s mental state.  
Wrongful intrusion is a tort in Illinois – by what right do these people (including employees of the State of Illinois) interfere in the lives of Gloria Sykes (and Mary Sykes)?
What has happened herein does not give rise to class action lawsuit, but it does give rise to a form lawsuit that can be adapted to just about every one of these ‘elder cleansing’ cases.   Let’s see if we can get an attorney to represent the interests of Gloria Sykes and obtain for her a measure of justice.   Quite frankly I see these pro-se actions going nowhere. 
Ken Ditkowsky

Janet Phelan announces Exile–her life regarding corruption and intrigue

In the year 2000, an out of work reporter is approached by a man who is not whom he appears to be. Lured into a romantic affair with him, the reporter is soon to lose everything—her family, her home, her country and nearly her life. EXILE is the true story of Janet Phelan, who fled the US after the attempts to permanently silence her went awry. The lengths to which the intelligence community will go to cover their tracks is revealed in this memoir. The ultimate question—what is the meaning behind this grave assault on an American citizen—unfolds as the story is told.


I am going to order a copy now.  I hope that everyone will do the same, and will post a good review for her.  I hope she will also sell on ebay and


From Book patch URL:

EXILE cover image