From Ken DitkowskyOn Jun 11, 2014 9:30 AM, “kenneth ditkowsky” <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
As some time ‘elder cleansing’ is going to be prosecuted, and some lawyers are going to be targets. I want Mr. Larkin to be deprived of the excuse that he did not know. I have that vivid memory of Larkin’s attorney walking up to me waving a letter to the Attorney General of the United States disclosing the elder cleansing and asking me if I was repentant for the outrageous act of reporting an ongoing felony. The fact that lawyer paid by the State of Illinois was not aware of the First Amendment and asked me if I was repentant for not engaging in the coverup of a felony gets the hair on the back of my neck to *****.
And I would like to remind all the lawyers out there that while they are not mandatory reporters under 320 ILCS section 20 which is the Illinois Elder Abuse Act, it was the Illinois Legislator’s intent that attorneys are strongly encouraged to report Elder Abuse as part of their jobs, as long as it does not violate a client confidence or create a conflict. Further, attorneys are not suppose to suborn perjury by letting their clients lie about elder abuse in court or in their pleadings–they must withdraw from a case if a client insists on lying about abusing an elder, disabled or child.
Many people out there think that lawyers can do whatever to protect a client, and that’s not true. We have to reveal the location of criminal tools–guns, weapons, etc. if ask that question in discovery or during a client’s deposition we cannot let a client lie about it. Fortunately most criminals and miscreants never tell their attorney where any tools for criminal activities are located, and we never want to know. The fact is 90% of all criminals and miscreants lie to us anyway and we know it and are wary of it.
As a result, before taking on a case, an attorney in Illinois in state court has a “Supreme Court Rule 137” duty to make a reasonable investigation of a case (documents from the client, inspecting the scene of a crime or pictures, receipts, bank account statements–etc., whatever is needed to ensure the suit is justified before filing it. In federal court, the duty is even stricter and comes under the Federal Rues of Civil Procedure Rule 11 prior to filing any litigation, or even continuing any litigation. Ken Ditkowsky was doing just that, on behalf of the friends and family of Mary G. Sykes when GAL Adam Stern called him up and threatened him with sanctions solely if Ken investigated the case.
That was the first time in 50 years of law practice Ken had been threatened in such a manner. I have not been threatened in 26 years of law practice, EXCEPT by one judge–Judge Connors–when I went to file an appearance for Gloria Sykes, and then one judge in Rockford was furious with me for bringing a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction in the Wyman Case–Judge Fabiano. I think Juvenile Justice also has problems, because when I went to represent a child in one of those court- rooms, I was told only attorneys from a list over in that court could do that, which I found strange, and I found an US Supreme Court case that a child has a right to select counsel. The child in that case was 12, mine was 14.
These peculiarities seem to crop up in courtrooms where the law is X but what is being done is Y. Adam Stern did carry through on his threat and joined with Cynthia Farenga in complaining about myself and Ken, and Ken was suspended for 4 years! Merely and mostly for pointing out on this blog that there was and is no jurisdiction in the Sykes case, and pretty much, no one seems to care in that courtroom. Not former Judge Jane Louis Stuart, not Judge (now Justice) Connors–she got promoted to the 2nd district Illinois Court of Appeals where she now writes legal opinions about how if there is no summons and complaint properly served, the court does not attain jurisdiction. Adam Stern did not care about jurisdiction, nor did Cynthia Farenga. Gloria appealed and the denial of her Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction was rubber stamped by the Illinois first district court of appeals and then the Ill. Sup. Ct. What’s up with that? Ditto for Carol and John Wyman, Carol Wyman now being deceased.
So the next step is to vindicate the rights of Carol Wyman and Mary Sykes in Federal Court alleging that their civil rights were violated in state court, there is a pattern of doing this, and many have suffered. Stay tuned. JoAnne