who did a wonderful, outstanding job on publication of this very important document.

The page goes live tomorrow.

Petition of the Month, July 2014: Ditkowsky v. The Illinois Attorney Disciplinary Review Committee (IARDC)

The Supreme Court Press “Petition of the Month”_TM for July 2014 is Ditkowsky v. The Illinois Attorney Disciplinary Review Committee (IARDC) Supreme Court Dkt. No. 13-1473, an appeal coming out of the State of Illinois. The petition was filed pro se by the petitioner Kenneth K. Ditkowsky.

Question Presented: (two of four questions presented by Petitioner)

1. Does the First Amendment provide protection to an attorney who reports criminal conduct to law enforcement?

2. Does the Illinois Attorney Disciplinary code nullify the moral and common law obligation of requiring citizens to object to elder abuse and financial exploitation of the elderly?

Many lawyers take up the law for idealistic reasons – to fight for the weak, to correct injustices, and preserve the rule of law. Upholding these values requires action be taken – action that can be lauded as crusading and exemplary by some, but reckless and inconvenient by others. However, when the lawyer takes on corruption whose seed might be planted within the legal system itself, the system sometimes retaliates with a fury with the ultimate punishment for an attorney – a referral to the bar’s disciplinary committee and long term suspension or disbarment. In the case of Ditkowsky v. The Illinois Attorney Disciplinary Review Committee (IARDC), Supreme Court, Dkt. No. 13-1473, Kenneth Ditkowsky was suspended from the bar for four years due to his investigation of what he believed to be the looting of an elderly woman, Mary Sykes. He believed that her attorney-guardian may have gone so far as to have stripped her bank safe deposit box and her 29 gold teeth. When he pursued the investigation, he was referred to the IARDC which recommended an ultimately achieved Ditkowsky’s bar suspension. The IARDC took little account of Ditkowsky’s past role in ferreting out corruption, notably helping the feds uncover judicial bribe taking in the Operation Greylord scandal of thirty years ago. The Ditkowsky petition asks the Court to consider whether a lawyer’s action to protect a potential abuse victim is Constitutionally protected speech.

As I dug into the Sykes case, I discovered that I had stepped into a quagmire. What was going was unbelievable! The family of Alice Gore reported that their mother was also isolated, stripped of her assets, abused and Attorney Miriam Solo had orchestrated the removal of 29 teeth from Ms. Gore’s mouth so as to mine her gold filings!                                                                                                                                                                                                           – Kenneth K. Ditkowsky

	Mr. Ditkowsky – Thank you for sitting down with us and discussing your Supreme Court filing. You have an interesting background as an activist for judicial integrity.  Can you tell our readers about your role in ferreting out the corruption in Operation Greylord?
	As an active practicing attorney in Cook County, Illinois, I had several occasions to appear before Judges who were targeted by the Operation Greylord scandal. This scandal rocked the legal profession as it exposed not only the extent of the corruption but the venality. The Chief Judge of the Chancery Division, Judge Shields,   was charged with accepting a $200.00 bribe. Dave Shields had had a reputation as a ‘reformer’ and had been expected to be a future leader of the new era of trust that was about to commence in the Circuit Court of Cook County. Fifteen Judges, dozens of attorneys, dozens of court personnel etc. went to jail; additional judges quietly retired, allowing them to avoid facing charges. The most venal of the judges was R. Holtzer. He was the President of his religious organization and managed to associate himself with all the right causes.vHis wife was a supervising Insurance Agent for the Prudential Insurance Company and in fact supervised several of my clients. As luck would have it, I accepted an injunction suit that was assigned to Judge Holtzer. The facts were uncontested and in my mind, my clients’ right to an injunction was guaranteed by black letter law. An entire community was being cut off by certain City of Chicago construction so that from approximately 6:00 A.M. to 10:00 A.M. and 3:00 PM to 7:00 PM they, and most emergency vehicles, would have extreme difficulty in accessing their homes.   Immediately after the case was assigned, I had a visitor.   Mrs. Holtzer came to my office and informed me that I needed several hundred thousand dollars of life insurance. As I had not just fallen off the turnip truck, I politely invited her to leave the office, pointing out to her that my insurance agent was a Mr. Gross, an agent under her supervision; I would discuss my insurance needs with him. I then made two telephone calls. The first call was to a Treasury Agent who was assigned to the Intelligence unit, and the second was to a personal friend who at that time just happened to be the Special Agent in Charge of the FBI office in Miami, Florida.   I was almost livid with anger and had to blow off steam somewhere.   My two friends were willing listeners. I knew that my refusal to purchase insurance meant that when the case came up for hearing the next morning, I was a dead bag loser.  I prepared my Notice of Appeal and docketing statement.  As scheduled, the next morning we appeared before Judge Holtzer.  The Judge was so very nice that butter would not melt in his mouth. He listened with great interest to our arguments, asked some questions and then with pursed judicial demeanor announced that he was dismissing the case as we had an adequate remedy at law.  The Construction would only continue on for a few months and the Construction company had posted a bond and therefore *****.   I waited for the order of dismissal to be entered and served everyone in sight with a copy of the Notice of Appeal.   I then went down to the clerks’ office and ordered an expedited record.  Thereafter I went to the Appellate Court clerks’ office, paid my docketing fee and filed the docketing statement.              When I returned to my office, a messenger from the Corporation Counsel’s office was waiting for me with a document entitled “Confession of Error”! The City of Chicago was acknowledging the appropriateness of the Petition for Injunctive relief and was obviating the need for an appeal! Judge Holtzer was not the only Judge engaging in such tactics. I appeared before many of the judges but was not affected except in two additional cases. The rulings in those cases were very strange. The lawyers on the other side of each of these cases were very defensive and neither could look me in the eye.  I have no concrete evidence that there was anything wrong or that any of the judges or lawyers were corrupt. The bulk of the Greylord problems involved the traffic court.  It was not uncommon to hear that if you hired a particular lawyer, no matter how serious the traffic charge was he had a 100% success rate. Of course, if you had parking tickets, etc., seeing a particular lawyer and/or a particular assistant corporate counsel would cause the ordinance violations to go away.  Similarly, in the criminal courts, certain lawyers had magic powers and their clients fared much better than those of ordinary lawyers. The cottage industry of corruption was exposed by the United States of America in subsequent enforcement procedures undertaken in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
	Today we stand at the thirty year anniversary of the first Greylord conviction. What is your assessment of the present state of the Cook County judiciary?
	Today corruption is not open and notorious as it once was. For instance, in 1961 when I first appeared before the Bar, corruption was worn like a badge of honor. We had two competing Courts – the Circuit Court (essentially a Court run by the Mr. Nash and Mr. Kelly – Democratic Party power houses) and the Superior Court (essentially run by the Republicans). The Court had some very fine judges. Judge Lupe as an example had the reputation for honor and honesty. Lawyers who appeared before him – win, lose or draw – lauded him and win lose or draw reported their cases had received a fair trial. Judge Covelli had a well-deserved reputation for his sense of humor. In one case, the foreign born parties to a lawsuit lapsed into their native language. No interpreter was present or called for and Covelli, without missing a beat, allowed each to testify in his/her native language. Covelli’s translation was “He says ‘yes’; she says ‘no'”. In another case, I and my opponent discovered that there was no resolution possible in the case because of the ‘Rule Against Perpetuities’. Covelli ordered the sheriff to lock us in the Jury Room until we came to a settlement. When we discovered he was pushing the limits, it took us two hours, but we did reach an agreement which was found satisfactory by both of our opposing clients. Most importantly every Chancery Judge had a sense of humor and in non-political cases – always provided a level playing field. You can name these judges on the fingers of one hand. The Court employed Masters in Chancery. The Masters were a world apart. Certain fixer firms abounded, and if they appeared as your opponent, a smart lawyer resigned or prepared for an appeal. Some judges were openly soliciting bribes. One called me on the telephone at home and his words to me were “the bid is five”. I had no idea why he was calling or what he meant. I soon found out. Another ruled that the Pythagorean Theorem formula was invalid. This judge, after I served a Notice of Appeal, was informed by his son, a high school freshman, that he was wrong and would be embarrassed. The Judge actually came to my home and begged me to withdraw the appeal. He presented a settlement offer that I could not refuse. After Greylord nothing really changed except that the fixer firms changed their names and the open solicitation for bribes was curtailed. I say curtailed because it takes a new form today. Gone is the white envelope full of dollars. As Judges are elected, many have campaign fund accounts and the bribe is a campaign contribution. As an elected judge faces a retention ballot periodically, rhetorically he/she has to have money to protect his position; however, there are more teeth in the mouth of the average hen than judges not being retained. A wife or child of a judge might legally receive a salary for being the chairman of the campaign committee or an employee in a not disinterested firm. I’ve detailed in e-mails to the United States Treasury, law enforcement and other interested people a paper on how judges and other members of the political elite receive bribes. The White Envelope Full of Cash is obsolete. I had one case in which the Judge’s wife was hired during the case by the defendant entity. In fact the employment contract was offered and accepted on the day of trial. In a case in which the Director of the Illinois Department of Revenue was an interested party, one of the investigators for the IDR furnished me a copy of the Supreme Court of Illinois’ opinion a one full week before it was announced to the public. She informed me that the opinion had been written by *****, an attorney in the Illinois Department of Revenue office. (I never verified her statement but, word for word, the document I received was filed as the opinion of the Court!) I did notice that as each judge, retired he was appointed by the Illinois Department of Revenue as a special attorney in a particularly complicated tax case. This all may be coincidence and unrelated to the decision as reached. The guardianship cases about which I complained, for which the Illinois ARDC and the Illinois Supreme Court pulled my license, present a whole smorgasbord of examples. Gloria Sykes reported that there were unusual campaign contributions by ****’s husband to a political figure. ***** reported that this husband was involved in more than a hundred real estate transactions involving estates in a single year. Indeed, the official real estate transaction records of Cook County reveal unusual mortgage transactions as well as transactions in which one party allegedly in disrepute purchases a parcel of land and then turns around and resells it to a political figure who is in a position to do “some good” to the aforesaid party at a bargain price. Your inquiry is whether or not Greylord created any change in the climate of corruption in Cook County. The answer is yes. The system is just as venal as it ever was, however, the transactions are much more subtle and much harder to prove. If I wish to sell my home to Judge X for half of its value, who is to tell me I cannot. You may assume that the verdict that I receive from Judge X next January is related, but, ****. Judge X’s daughter is a very bright articulate young woman. Why should I discriminate against her and not hire her as my personal assistant? Let me make it very clear. We have some bad people in Cook County who are judges, but, we also have many who are dedicated public servants who try to do a good job. For instance, we have several judges who work obscenely long hours and actually read the law, attempt to understand the facts, and go out of their way so that each litigant enjoys a level playing field. In my fifty plus years before the Bar, I’ve appeared before hundreds of judges who have made me proud of my profession and more importantly proud to appear before them. I’ve had opponents who I’d give my right arm for and they for me. The vast majority of lawyers and judges whom I’ve appeared before (or with) are honorable men and women whom I number among my friends. However, there is a minority who are the nadir of the profession. It is indeed fortunate that this collection of miscreants appeared in the twilight of my career rather than in the beginning. (In my early days I was pugnacious) I hope that this answered your question. A lawyer is trained to answer every question with a firm “maybe!” In answer to your question requesting my opinion as to whether the judges who suspended me are problem judges, I have to make the following statement: The Judges of the Supreme Court of Illinois are elected. They are the judges who suspended me. What they did was to affirm the review panel of the IARDC. My research on these panels of the IARDC suggests to me that if the IARDC decided that red was green, the panels would attorn and each panel in turn would agree. The Supreme Court seems to rubber stamp most of the proceedings of the IARDC. However, it also appears that an unusual decision is from time to time published. I refer you to Karavidas 2013 IL 115767 (page 15), and Peel v ARDC 496 US 91 (page 10, 33, 34, 38). It should be noted that the seven Judges of the Illinois Supreme Court, like all attorneys, have taken an oath to protect the Constitution of Illinois and the United States of America. It is quite obvious that Mr. Larkin, his commission, his lawyers and his rubber stamp panels have assaulted the First Amendment. Article 1 Section 12 of the Illinois Constitution directs the entities of Illinois including the Supreme Court to provide a remedy for all wrongs perpetrated in the state. It therefore follows that the judges of the Supreme Court of Illinois have been specifically directed to protect citizens from grievous wrongs that have been promulgated against the elderly, disabled, and the whistleblowers such as yours truly who protest elder cleansing.
	Let’s now turn to the case that precipitated your Supreme Court filing – which unfortunately is your own case – you were suspended from practicing law for four years – for conduct that allegedly occurred in conjunction with your vigorous legal defense of an elderly woman named Mary Sykes whose assets were possibly being looted. Can you describe the concerns regarding Ms. Sykes that you were investigating?
	Illinois in its statutes has incorporated all the protections necessary to protect senior citizens from exploitation and abuse. 735 ILCS 110/5 guarantees that the rights under the First Amendment and Article 1 section 4 of the Illinois Constitution are FIRST PRINCIPLES! Section 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3 points out that guardianships are not death sentences, but are only tools to be used to provide healthy, comfortable, happy and useful lives for persons subject to the draconian remedy of guardianship. Guardianship is a thankless task (and intended to be so) that only well-meaning and well intentioned people should undertake. My concern with the Mary Sykes case was the allegation and the proof that developed that convinced me that she was railroaded into a guardianship so that her hard earned assets could be expropriated by her older daughter and she could be eliminated. I refer to this final solution as “involuntary assisted suicide.” I knew Mary; I had represented her previously in a jury trial. I know from my experience that the dementia is progressive and does not suddenly appear. I also knew that Mary’s older daughter was married to an individual who suffered from chronic unemployment. He just could not keep a job. As I state in my petition after Mary’s family contacted me, I started my FRCP 11 investigation. This investigation required me to find out why Dr. Patel’s report was 180 degrees different than the Report of Dr. Amdur. To my surprise Adam Stern called me and threatened me. When Stern could not frighten me, Peter Schmiedel called and he reiterated the threats. (I opened the speaker phone so that my wife could hear each conversation). The two attorneys, the first a Guardian ad Litem, the second, the attorney for the plenary guardian, then filed a Supreme Court Rule 137 motion against me. Rule 137 deals with false pleadings – I had not even inadvertently had contact with any pleading or any proceeding involving the case of In re: Mary Sykes 09 P 4585. Now I was hooked. Even though there was no jurisdiction I had to address the threats. To my surprise, Judge Connors found me guilty of a Rule 137 violation. Exactly what violation it was has been never disclosed, but, the IARDC and these miscreants do not apparently have to be specific. I am accused by the IARDC of making false statements, yet not a single statement ever been disclosed. Whatever the false statements are only the IARDC knows! Lawyers hold a special position of trust. We are not robots, and our loyalty is to Lady Justice. We do not aid and abet criminal conduct and we certainly do not participate in it. (Maybe I should say – most lawyers!). When injustice or wrongs occur as citizens, not only do we morally have a duty to address these wrongs, but our oath to defend the Constitution (and 18 USCA 4) require each of us (lawyers) to report to law enforcement the criminal activity. I had received threats! Honest lawyers do not threaten – they do! Why should Adam Stern threaten me? Why would he be interested in preventing me from investigating a guardianship? The answer is obvious and I took the information that I knew and informed law enforcement. (Gloria Sykes had written a long complaint to the IARDC complaining of the fact her mother was being abused and isolated. She further complained of the theft of her and her mother’s property and the highly suspect and improper actions of Judge Connors, Cynthia Farenga, Adam Stern, et al.) I wrote requesting an investigation. As I dug into the Sykes case, I discovered that I had stepped into a quagmire. What was going was unbelievable! The family of Alice Gore reported that their mother was also isolated, stripped of her assets, abused and Attorney Miriam Solo had orchestrated the removal of 29 teeth from Ms. Gore’s mouth so as to mine her gold filings!
	How did it happen that you, acting as a defender of an elderly woman, became the ultimate victim, through a complaint to the IARDC?  What did they allege you did?
	The Appellate Court decision finding that the Rule 137 proceedings against me were conducted without jurisdiction was described by Adam Stern as a technicality. Cynthia Farenga, the original Guardian ad Litem was extremely upset, as not only was Judge Connors rendered helpless to stop me from exercising my First Amendment Rights but I was now communicating with the Justice Department, Senator Kirk, and more significantly I was pointing out that a breach of fiduciary relationship was a taxable event. What this meant was that the ‘loot’ from the elder cleansing was taxable income. Worse yet it was to be taxed as ordinary income rates As Blogs were picking up my statements and republishing them, the miscreants understood that it was possible that the Department of the Treasury would assign one of its employees in the intelligence division to examine the finances in the Sykes case. It also was apparent that Gloria Sykes and a bunch of her mother’s friends and neighbors were letter writers. They also were waging a vocal protest to the IARDC and law enforcement over the railroading of Mary Sykes into a guardianship wherein her liberty and property could be pirated. Scott Evans, a former Federal Employee with the CIA, disclosed that he had actually tracked down Mary and found her in an adult day care facility in Naperville, Illinois. He described the horrid conditions and how Mary had absolutely no stimulation or contact with “alive” people. He described the other residents as “zombies!” What upset Judge Connors, and the miscreants was the fact that he chose to disclose this fact after Peter Schmiedel informed the Court of the “wonderful progress” Mary was making. Mr. Larkin and the IARDC desired to silence me and in particular wanted to stop the flow of letters and e-mails coming from me. The “safe harbor” letters to Farenga, and Stern were particularly offensive in that I offered to leave them out of any Civil Rights that I might file either for myself or a client if they just did the job that they were required to do. This job required them to formally report to the Court and allow it appear of record some uncontroverted facts: The plenary guardian was insolvent prior to her appointment, yet today she exhibits all the attributes of wealth including expensive jewelry, lavish parties, expensive vacations, massive remodeling on her home etc. The big change in the fortunes of the plenary guardian is that she is now a pensioner, having retired from her educator position. Mary Sykes had a safety deposit box (as a co-tenant with Gloria). This box was accessed by the guardian, the contents removed and not one item was inventoried. This box contained a large number of gold coins. These coins were those that Mary and Gloria inherited from Mary’s husband and one Albert Biddy. The coins had a value in excess of a million dollars. Mary’s two siblings and her younger daughter complained that they could not contact Mary. Telephone contact was forbidden by the plenary guardian. Mary’s contact with other friends and neighbors was cut off. Even her beloved garden club was forbidden her. Frequent visits to the emergency room by Mary were noted, including one visit in occasioned by Mary losing 10% of her body weight. Mary had trouble swallowing – the guardian just neglected to get her medical help. I suggested that either of the GALs report to the Court that I had informed them of these facts and they could use my name, if either could not personaly verify any of them, if such made them more comfortable. When I received no reply I reported this fact to law enforcement. I demanded an Honest, intelligent and comprehensive investigation. See Farenga letter. Farenga’s letters are reproduced in Appendix P of the Petition for Writ of Certiorari. Stripped to its essentials that IARDC complaint against me is that I complied with FRCP and started an investigation before filing a lawsuit, and when attempts to silence were promulgated I wrote to law enforcement and others a complaint that outlined some uncontroverted facts, to wit: The guardianship of Mary violated the Rule of Law and in particular the Constitution in that: No jurisdiction was obtained as Mary was not served with process that complied with the statutory requirements. The file indicates that there was no service on her at all. No notice of any kind was given to the relatives of Mary Sykes including her two sisters – this is also jurisdictional. Every protection to which Mary was entitled to was ignored. It is respectfully submitted that the respondent and in particular its director made it clear in their cross-examination of me that this entire proceeding was brought because they could not intimidate me into abandoning my responsibilities as a human being. The punishment was augmented to four years because I showed no remorse. (An IARDC attorney actually asked me if I was remorseful for writing to the Attorney General of the United States disclosing this elder cleansing of Mary Sykes). Effect on me of the Spurious Charges that threatened my livihood.

The question of how this chilling action by the Illinois Supreme Court affects other lawyers in suspending me, Mr. Amu, and prosecuting Ms. Denison has one simple answer. I do not know, however, I suspect that a family member or victim of elder cleansing is having a more difficult task in obtaining a lawyer to protect their interests. If my suspicion is correct, the Illinois Supreme Court has not only done a terrible service to the Illinois public, but, forever tarnished its reputation and that of the legal profession.                                                                                                                                                                                       – Kenneth K. Ditkowsky

	How did you react when you learned that your law license was in jeopardy, when you were exercising your First Amendment rights and doing what you believed would assist a possible criminal investigation?
	At first I could not believe that any State of Illinois entity would violate the policy of the State as recited in 735 ILCS 110/5; however, I did know that Illinois was the second most corrupt State in the Union. Illinois had two governors in Federal prison! Students could not name five governors of the State who had not been jailbirds in the past Century. It was difficult to pick up a newspaper and not read about some member of the political elite who was not in some sort of criminal proceeding as a defendant. In my previous half century as a lawyer I had crossed swords with other corrupt political people and I even was the potential victim of a ‘hit.’ The miscreant was apprehended in the alley behind my home. A neighbor saw him lurking in the alley and called the police. He confessed to his purpose. I recognized the current miscreants as scavengers who preyed on the elderly and the disabled. As Gloria Sykes informed me that all she wanted was her mother to be free from bondage and returned to the life she (Mary) loved, I figured that having secured the ‘loot’ the miscreants would consider me a minor nuisance and avoid me. Ms. Black who was the IARDC attorney had much more on her mind. She even tried to intimidate Ms. Sykes and as noted in the appendix in answers to discover pointed out that the administrator had filed his complaint against me without a scintilla of evidence that I had even made a statement that was inaccurate. This became serious when I was denied the opportunity to know what statements I made that were false, and even though the file of case 09 P 4585 vindicated every statement I made (or any of the friends and family of Mary Sykes had made), my subpoena for the file was quashed. Not only wwere the charges brought against me a secret, but any evidence that might inadvertently demonstrate the perfidy of the proceeding was not to be allowed to get within a country mile of the proceeding. What was particularly interesting and disturbing was the fact that the Supreme Court of the United States had ruled on the issues I was facing and pointed out that the First Amendment protected even outright lies if they were content related. Thus, argued the respondent you could sell violent videos to children, picket funerals of dead hero, falsely claim to be a mental of honor winner, however you could not report criminal behavior of judicial officials. So disingenuous was the proceeding that the IARDC attorney made statements concerning a fifty year old Sawyer case (decided by the Supreme Court) that were contradicted in the last paragraphs of the opinion. The ruling of the Court was 100% contrary to the statement by an ARDC attorney. After I quoted the ruling word for word as stated by the court, both orally and in documents filed with the court, future statements by the IARDC did not cite the case. Sawyer unless over-ruled should cause the Supreme Court of the United States to reverse the decision of the Illinois Supreme Court that affects me.
	Don’t you feel your case has a chilling effect on attorneys who spot corruption?
	The question of how this chilling action by the Illinois Supreme Court affects other lawyers in suspending me, Mr. Amu, and prosecuting Ms. Denison has one simple answer.   I do not know, however, I suspect that a family member or victim of elder cleansing is having a more difficult task in obtaining a lawyer to protect their interests.    If my suspicion is correct,  the Illinois Supreme Court has not only done a terrible service to the Illinois public, but, forever tarnished its reputation and that of the legal profession.   Respect is earned.   It is earned by hard work, diligence, honor and honesty.       In my humble opinion it is dishonest for a lawyer to  shirk his responsibility to the Bill of Rights and the core value of America.  No one asked any individual to be a lawyer!  The taking of the oath meant taking the responsibility to stand up when Americana is threatened and be counted even if it means personal loss.  This may be flag waving – but, we have something special and it must be preserved.

  In my humble opinion it is dishonest for a lawyer to  shirk his responsibility to the Bill of Rights and the core value of America.  No one asked any individual to be a lawyer!  The taking of the oath meant taking the responsibility to stand up when Americana is threatened and be counted even if it means personal loss.  This may be flag waving – but, we have something special and it must be preserved.                                                                                                                                                                                                                       – Kenneth K. Ditkowsky

---

I told her I said property TRANSACTIONS and she did not respond further.

I believe she knows what she does and what is going on on the 18th floor.

She is a smart lady, from what I’ve seen, but not smart and brave enough to do her job and follow the Illinois Probate act.

Ken’s response was a bit stronger:

All of the briefs have now been submitted to the ARDC, and you can check them out at this link:

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwSlRTQjRvVFhZcVU&usp=sharing

Unlike the ARDC blog, this blog has everything, and we will post whatever you request that makes this blog fair sided and even.

Favorite quotes from our Appellate Brief:

An appellate Court must independently examine the entire record in First Amendment cases to ensure that “‘a forbidden intrusion on the field of free expression’” has not occurred. Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 466 U.S. 485

“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

(now don’t we all know that the IARDC would love to own and control this Blog–a Blog that attracts thousands of visitors each month?)

“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. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622

(“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., 133 S. Ct. 2321

“[G]overnment 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

Note that the cases we cite are all SCOTUS or US Sup. Ct. Cases.

What does the ARDC cite in its brief in response?

The ARDC ignores the issues of the First Amendment, and just say the case is all about the disciplinary proceeding (no) so the IARDC should have immunity, a probate case that Ken and I were personally involved in (no) so the GAL’s should have immunity.

The gravamen of their complaint was that they
were prevented from engaging in the practice of law in the matter of Estate ofMary Sykes, No. 09 P 4585, filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, CountyDepartment, Probate Division. R. 1, at ¶5; R. 39, Exhibit (“Ex.”) E.

 

They of course, mention the letter to Dr. Patel (who did nothing with the letter and just put it in the file), as follows

Ditkowsky sent a letter to Mary Sykes’ doctor and falsely represented
that he had been contacted to represent Mary’s interests and would be
requesting the doctor’s medical records as soon as he filed his appearance in the guardianship proceedings. R. 32, Ex. 1, at 2; R. 39, Ex. E, at 3

 

I assume that they are hoping the 7th Circuit won’t read the letter because it uses the words “after I appear” for Mary Sykes plainly and clearly.  Of course, the ARDC Tribunal ignored those words and claimed that Ken falsely state he did appear in the letter.  Remember, if you work for the ARDC, never, never post that letter. Shhhhh.  Someone might realize you cover up inconvenient facts and truths to get what you want.

The truth is also not important to them in whose blog is whose:

Farenga enclosed copies of pages from Denison’s internet blog,
ProbateSharks.com, in which Denison printed writings by Ditkowsky that accused Farenga and Stern of criminal conduct and “gross improprieties” in their role as guardians ad litem for Mary Sykes. Id., at A3-4.

 

Everyone knows that the Probate Sharks blog is NOT my blog.  It belongs to Ken Cooper, pursuant to Whois.net–the official site for ownership of blogs.  No matter, the facts do NOT stop the ARDC.

Interestingly enough, on pp. 28-29 of their brief, the ARDC skips the entire jurisdiction requirement–Summons, Service of Petition upon the Respondent 14 days advance notice of time, date and place of hearing, and upon the elderly sisters.  They just say “guardianship has to be in the best interests of the ward”.  Okay, as determined by whom?  The Illinois state government?  The 18th floor of the Daley Center? What about our state legislature and US constitution providing due process, a summons and proper complaint to a defendant?  Do we now arrest people and drag them into star chambers and off with their heads?  Is the ARDC sanctioning jurisdictionless guardianships without notice and without an opportunity to be heard and to object? Circa 1780 we were promised these rights were inalienable and would endure forever, now, in one swoop, the18th floor takes away these rights and the ARDC skips the rights in its responsive brief and says we don’t have a US and Illinois constitution when and if certain court appointed attorneys are involved.

Do you think that the ARDC, in filing this brief, could be less caring about seniors and wards of the State of Illinois, giving purchase to the miscreants of the 18th floor who will determine if and when anyone in Cook County needs a guardianship, without notice, and without due process?

They for sure do not address the human and civil rights violations in doing so, and that violates US treaty law on Elder Abuse and Financial Exploitation, which is not only rampant in the US (see GAO reports published on NASGA website), but also apparently elsewhere in the world.  Seems to be an universal problem that miscreants can’t keep their mitts of of a ward’s honey pot.

Another interesting quote from the ARDC brief:

The ARDC is the body created by the Illinois Supreme Court for the
purposes of the administrative supervision of the registration of, and
disciplinary proceedings affecting, members of the Illinois bar. Ill. S. Ct. R. 751(a). Jerome Larkin, as Administrator, is the principal executive officer of the Commission, having been appointed to that position by the Commissioners with the approval of the Illinois Supreme Court. Ill. S. Ct. R. 751(e)(1), 752.

 

But try and call them and ask why no one at the ARDC files Ethics Reports according to the Illinois Ethics Act of 2009 mandated by government agencies, and Janet Phelan, who has done so will tell you that she was told the ARDC was a “private entity”, not subject to mandates for Illinois agencies.  So, on one hand the ARDC wants immunity, so it puts in its briefs it is a government agency that gets 11th Amendment immunity.  BUT when you call them on the carpet for not following the mandates of Illinois Ethics laws for manadatory reporting of all attorneys and management, suddenly it is not a government agency.

I want to know why the IARDC isn’t be guardianized itself for clearly having MPD or Multiple Personality Disorder?

Even more interesting is the claim of “litigation privilege” by the ARDC on p.22 of its brief–a claim neither Denison nor Ditkowsky were able to make during their trials:

Illinois law provides an absolute litigation privilege in favor of
attorneys, which protects anything said or written in the course of legal proceedings relative to claims made in the lawsuit. As noted by this Court:
Illinois law recognizes an absolute litigation privilege
which protects anything said or written in the course of a
legal proceeding. The only qualification to this privilege is
that the communication pertain to the litigation. This
requirement is not applied strictly, and the
communication need not be confined to the specific issues
involved in the litigation . . . the rationale for the privilege
is to secure for attorneys as officers of the court the
utmost freedom in representing clients. The absolute
privilege is afforded even when malice is assumed to
have motivated the attorney. All doubts are to be
resolved in favor of finding that the privilege applies.
Steffes v. Stephan Co., 144 F.3d 1070, 1074 (7th Cir. 1998).

 

Isn’t it quite odd that the ARDC claims this privilege for itself, but it does not allow Denison or Ditkowsky to assert it, because in fact all Denison did was write this blog and tell the truth, and all Ditkowsky did was attempt to investigate a case upon which he did not appear in.

Here we go again, the ARDC claiming it IS a state agency and therefore entitiled to immunity:

Defendant Larkin, in his position as Administrator of the ARDC, is a
state government actor, and this Court has held that the ARDC is the legal equivalent of the State. Johnson v. Supreme Court of Illinois, 165 F.3d 1140, 1141 (7th Cir. 1999); see also Bilal v. Wolf, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55579, 55596-97 (N.D. Ill. 2009).

 

But then why don’t they Ethics Report as mandated by law?  And why don’t they publish salaries, as 99% of all other state agencies do to ensure that bribes aren’t being taken?

All good questions for the 7th cir. to figure out.

Next the ARDC on pp. 41 argues against an injunction on the grounds, such conditions are unlikely to happen again.  But the Sykes case is going on, and so are other cases that Denison blogs on, and she gets told in court, after one of the attorneys points it out to the judge and makes a request, to stop blogging.  Stopping court watchers from blogging and taking notes continues to this day on the 18th floor and every time it happened in the Sykes case, AS, CF and PS all asked or agreed with the court’s decision to prevent blogging by Denison.  Atty Ken Ditkowsky continues to write emails, faxes and letters to the authorities about the Sykes case–what about all of that is not over?  The US Supreme Ct has made it clear that note taking is a constitutional right in numerous decisions with which Tim Evans and Sheriff Dart do not agree.  Denison has asked them repeatedly to instruct their deputies, allow the public laptops and tablets to blog and note take efficiently–all denied.  Never responded to–except perhaps by Sheriff Dart refusing to issue Denison an attorney ID!  I have FOIA’d the reason for that and they have asked for an extension of time.  I faxed in the earlier requests and they were not responded to, so the last one I dropped off in person and asked to deliver it to counsel personally.  I suspect that some employees probably didn’t like the FOIA and it would conveniently fall into a circular file, but I digress.

The IARDC then cites the Palmisano case, and basically says that all of you peons out there who are not in “the club” or have a law license are stupid and need to be protected.  Get a load of this quote they liked:

Indiscriminate accusations of dishonesty, by contrast, do
not help cleanse the judicial system of miscreants yet do
impair its functioning–for judges do not take to the talk
shows to defend themselves, and few litigants can
separate accurate from spurious claims of judicial
misconduct.  In re Palmissano

 

That’s right, it’s now official. The public is stupid, you don’t know your constitutional rights, and therefore, the ARDC has to strictly control the speech of Denison and Ditkowsky because Schmeidel, Farenga and Stern have all acted as saints in the Sykes case.  Gimma a break.  The public CAN read the Illinois Probate Act and follow it closely. The pubic knows when there is no valid service of a summons and complaint there is NO JURISDICTION and the proceeding is fake or under “color of law.”

Many probate victims, I have found, after being fleeced of life, liberty and property read and know the Illinois Probate Act, the Elder Abuse Laws, backwards and forwards, in and out. They may be terrorized and beleaguered, but they are NOT stupid.

Next it can be noted on p. 45 the ARDC admits:

While it is not clear from the plaintiffs’ complaint that they are alleging a First Amendment retaliation claim, the arguments in their appellate brief appear to focus on allegations of being deprived of their First Amendment rights to blog, email, send letters,
call for investigations or communicate with each other.

 

Note that while we are not entitled to an injunction because past conduct will not dictate future harm, the ARDC admits that the complaint is based upon the defendants preventing Ken and I from blogging, sending emails, faxes and other communications to third parties (family members and friends of Mary, the authorities and other probate victims). This blog has not stopped.  Our communications have not ceased.  The ARDC filed disciplinary proceedings against us to stop our communications to the authorities and others.  The repeatedly struck and ignored motions, facts, witnesses and evidence that our communications spoke the truth.  We alleged a cover up and the cover up continues unabated and our communications and investigations continue.  We are clearly entitled to an injunction.

From my brief filed yesterday, written by Ken and edited by myself:

Main premise (fn 1)

1Gentile cited by defendants on page 29 of their brief provides no comfort for the
defendants as it points out that:
“The prohibition against vague regulations of speech is based in part on the need
to eliminate the impermissible risk of discriminatory enforcement, Kolender v.
Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357-358, 361, 103 S.Ct. 1855, 1858-1859, 1860, 75
L.Ed.2d 903 (1983); Smith v. Goguen, 415 U.S. 566, 572-573, 94 S.Ct. 1242,
1246-1247, 39 L.Ed.2d 605 (1974), for history shows that speech is suppressed
when either the speaker or the message is critical of those who enforce the law.
The question is not whether discriminatory enforcement occurred here, and we
assume it did not, but whether the Rule is so imprecise that discriminatory
enforcement is a real possibility. The inquiry is of particular relevance when one
of the classes most affected by the regulation is the criminal defense bar, which
has the professional mission to challenge actions of the State. Petitioner, for
instance, succeeded in preventing the conviction of his client, and the speech in
issue involved criticism of the government. “ Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501
U.S. 1030, 1051, 111 S. Ct. 2720, 2732, 115 L. Ed. 2d 888 (1991)
Thus, Gentile makes it abundantly clear that being critical of judicial officials is an act protected by the First Amendment. Larkin thus grossly exceeds his authority, as even the Supreme Court of Illinois lacks the authority to limit an attorney’s 18 USCA § 4 duty, his right to petition his government and or complain of corruption. Without delegation of authority, Larkin’s conduct is ultra vires and no matter how viewed he enjoys no immunity to deny a fellow citizen of his/her civil liberties and the right to speak out.

In particular, the defendants offer no authority or delegation to regulate Ms. Denison’s blog, or the content thereof, or their continuous attempts to silence Ditkowsky’s communications and contributions to other blogs, including Denison’s.2

2During the opening of Denison’s trial, incredulously the IARDC litigating attorney
compared Ms. Denison’s Blog to “shouting fire in a crowded theatre”– in an absurd attempt to bring it under the guise of “strict scrutiny”. Plaintiff Denison’s response to those assertions have been 1) don’t shoot the messenger; 2) the blog is not subversive dissent to be crushed by US authorities; 3) don’t blame the media for its content and 4) when offended, simply avert thy eyes.

The regulation of attorneys’ speech is limited-it applies only to speech that is
substantially likely to have a materially prejudicial effect; it is neutral as to
points of view, applying equally to all attorneys participating in a pending
case; and it merely postpones the attorneys’ comments until after the trial.
While supported by the substantial state interest in preventing prejudice to an
adjudicative proceeding by those who have a duty to protect its integrity, the Rule
is limited on its face to preventing only speech having a substantial likelihood of
materially prejudicing that proceeding. Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 U.S.
1030,

7Denison is being subjected to unique disciplinary proceedings in which it appears that transcripts have been altered – the IARDC refuses to provide the audio voice recordings that would verify the accuracy of the transcripts. Ditkowsky has been suspended from the practice of law for 4 years destroying a successful law practice of more than fifty years in duration. The injury to the plaintiffs foreseeably continues. All the injuries were caused by the plaintiff’s reporting to authorities that a senior citizen’s million dollars in gold coins had been reported removed from a safety deposit box without prior court order and was never inventoried by the plenary guardian, that a senior citizen had five unreported trips to an emergency room and lost 10% of her body weight, etc. All of the foregoing were deemed by the defendant IARDC to be
unethical communications, despite the fact that all were supported by affidavits by witnesses to the actual behaviors. None of the witnesses to the felonies and misdemeanors have been allowed to testify in court, not even in the Kangaroo Court of the IARDC . The ARDC systematically and strenuously bans adverse witnesses, motions, adverse discovery and any facts or motions it deems unhelpful to its case. The Tribunals it uses are not independent to the ARDC and Denison has witnessed conversations between her Tribunal members and staff at the ARDC. The ARDC
houses, selects and assists all Tribunal members at all times. Further, in contravention to the Illinois Ethics Reporting Act of 2009, no ARDC attorney or management files any Ethics report, as mandated by Illinois law. All of this embarrassing and crucial information is published at all times on Pltf Denison’s blog.

So, read the briefs and decide for yourselves who you want to be the official attorney censors–Jerome Larkin, who has “funny” property records, or Adam Stern, who has a $60k unexplained tax lien, Cynthia Farenga who has a husband with 100 property transactions, or Judge Stuart, and her changed testimony and altered transcript the ARDC refuses to provide the audio to, applying the whitewash brush again by saying “file an affidavit” and we’ll consider the affidavit.

Remember, it is the official position of the ARDC to insult the public’s intelligence. My tribunal insulted Kathie Bakken an older disabled woman with a walker by saying sour grapes you don’t understand, and Yolanda Bakken, an 85 year old plus woman who is frail and has mobility issues, again, family member, sour grapes to you–also insulting their intelligence.

The ARDC position is they will decide the facts, they will protect an attorney code of silence, they want to shut down this blog and the US govt will tell you what to think and do.  1985 was a banner year for them. They read the book and believed it and thought it was good–for them.

Joanne

.

Answers to your questions:

1. You have my permission to publish or use in any way you desire the answers to my questions.

Operation Greylord.

                As an active practicing attorney in Cook County, Illinois, I had several occasions to appear before Judges who were targeted by the Operation Greylord scandal.         This scandal rocked the legal profession as it exposed not only the extent of the corruption but the venality.     The Chief Judge of the Chancery Division, Judge Shields, was charged with accepting a $200.00 bribe.    Dave Shields had had a reputation as a ‘reformer’ and had been expected to be a future leader of the new era of trust that was about to commence in the Circuit Court of Cook County.     Fifteen Judges, dozens of attorneys, dozens of court personnel etc. went to jail; additional judges quietly retired, allowing them to avoid facing charges.  

                The most venal of the judges was R. Holtzer.     He was the President of his religious organization and managed to associate himself with all the right causes.    His wife was a supervising Insurance Agent for the Prudential Insurance Company and in fact supervised several of my clients.  As luck would have it, I accepted an injunction suit that was assigned to Judge Holtzer. The facts were uncontested and in my mind, my clients’ right to an injunction was guaranteed by black letter law.     An entire community was being cut off by certain City of Chicago construction so that from approximately 6:00 A.M. to 10:00 A.M. and 3:00 PM to 7:00 PM they, and most emergency vehicles, would have extreme difficulty in accessing their homes.   

                Immediately after the case was assigned, I had a visitor.    Mrs. Holtzer came to my office and informed me that I needed several hundred thousand dollars of life insurance.     As I had not just fallen off the turnip truck, I politely invited her to leave the office, pointing out to her that my insurance agent was a Mr. Gross, an agent under her supervision; I would discuss my insurance needs with him.     I then made two telephone calls.    The first call was to a Treasury Agent who was assigned to the Intelligence unit, and the second was to a personal friend who at that time just happened to be the Special Agent in Charge of the FBI office in Miami, Florida.     I was almost livid with anger and had to blow off steam somewhere.    My two friends were willing listeners.     I knew that my refusal to purchase insurance meant that when the case came up for hearing the next morning, I was a dead bag loser.      I prepared my Notice of Appeal and docketing statement.

                As scheduled, the next morning we appeared before Judge Holtzer.    The Judge was so very nice that butter would not melt in his mouth.     He listened with great interest to our arguments, asked some questions and then with pursed judicial demeanor announced that he was dismissing the case as we have an adequate remedy at law.     The Construction would only continue on for a few months and the Construction company had posted a bond and therefore *****.      I waited for the order of dismissal to be entered and served everyone in sight with a copy of the Notice of Appeal.     I then went down to the clerks’ office and ordered an expedited record.       Thereafter I went to the Appellate Court clerks’ office, paid my docketing fee and filed the docketing statement.     

                When I returned to my office, a messenger from the Corporation Counsel’s office was waiting for me with a document entitled “Confession of Error”!     The City of Chicago was acknowledging the appropriateness of the Petition for Injunctive relief and was obviating the need for an appeal!

                Judge Holtzer was not the only Judge engaging in such tactics.   I appeared before many of the judges but was not affected except in two additional cases.     The rulings in those cases were very strange.      The lawyers on the other side of each of these cases were very defensive and neither could look me in the eye.      I have no concrete evidence that there was anything wrong or that any of the judges or lawyers were corrupt.

                The bulk of the Greylord problems involved the traffic court.     It was not uncommon to hear that if you hired a particular lawyer, no matter how serious the traffic charge was he had a 100% success rate.     Of course, if you had parking tickets, etc., seeing a particular lawyer and/or a particular assistant corporate counsel, would cause the ordinance violations to go away.     Similarly, in the criminal courts, certain lawyers had magic powers and their clients fared much better than those of ordinary lawyers.      The cottage industry of corruption was exposed by the United States of America in subsequent enforcement procedures undertaken in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Current Corruption

Today corruption is not open and notorious as it once was.      For instance, in 1961 when I first appeared before the Bar, corruption was worn like a badge of honor.     We had two competing Courts – the Circuit Court (essentially a Court run by Mr. Nash and Mr. Kelly – Democratic Party power houses) and the Superior Court (essentially run by the Republicans).     

The Court had some very fine judges.    Judge Lupe as an example had the reputation for honor and honesty.    Lawyers who appeared before him – win, lose or draw – lauded him and win lose or draw reported their cases had received a fair trial. Judge Covelli had a well-deserved reputation for his sense of humor. In one case, the foreign born parties to a lawsuit lapsed into their native language.   No interpreter was present or called for and Covelli, without missing a beat, allowed each to testify in his/her native language. Covelli’s translation was “He says ‘yes’; she says ‘no’”.   In another case, I and my opponent discovered that there was no resolution possible in the case because of the ‘Rule Against Perpetuities’.   Covelli ordered the sheriff to lock us in the Jury Room until we came to a settlement.   When we discovered he was pushing the limits, it took us two hours, but we did reach agreement which was found satisfactory by both of our opposing clients.      Most importantly every Chancery Judge had a sense of humor and in non-political cases – always provided a level playing field.     You can name these judges on the fingers of one hand.       The Court employed Masters in Chancery.      The Masters were a world apart.      Certain fixer firms abounded, and if they appeared as your opponent, a smart lawyer resigned or prepared for an appeal.   

Some judges were openly soliciting bribes.    One called me on the telephone at home and his words to me were “the bid is five”.      I had no idea why he was calling or what he meant.    I soon found out.       Another ruled that the Pythagorean Theorem formula [1] was invalid.    This judge, after I served a Notice of Appeal, was informed by his son, a high school freshman, that he was wrong and would be embarrassed.    The Judge actually came to my home and begged me to withdraw the appeal.     He presented a settlement offer that I could not refuse.    

After Greylord nothing really changed except that the fixer firms changed their names and the open solicitation for bribes was curtailed.     I say curtailed because it takes a new form today.   Gone is the white envelope full of dollars.      As Judges are elected, many have campaign fund accounts and the bribe is a campaign contribution.      As an elected judge faces a retention ballot periodically, rhetorically he/ she has to have money to protect his position; however, there are more teeth in the mouth of the average hen than judges not being retained.     A wife or child of a judge might legally receive a salary for being the chairman of the campaign committee or an employee in a not disinfested firm.

I’ve detailed in e-mails to the United States Treasury, law enforcement and other interested people a paper on how judges and other members of the political elite receive bribes.       The White envelope full of cash is obsolete.      I had one case in which the Judge’s wife was hired during the case by the defendant entity.     In fact it was day of trial.      In a case in which the Director of the Illinois Department of Revenue was an interested party, one of the investigators for the IDR furnished me a copy of the Supreme Court of Illinois’ opinion a one full week before it was announced to the public.     She informed me that the opinion had been written by *****, an attorney in the IDR office.     (I never verified her statement but, word for word, the document I received was filed as the opinion of the Court!)       I did notice that as each judge, retired he was appointed by the Illinois Department of Revenue as a special attorney in a particular complicated tax case.    This all may be coincidence and unrelated to the decision as reached.

The guardianship cases about which I complained, for which the Illinois ARDC and the Illinois Supreme Court pulled my license, present a whole smorgasbord of examples.    Gloria Sykes reported that there were unusual campaign contributions by ****’s husband to a political figure.     ***** reported that this husband was involved in more than a hundred real estate transactions involving estates.       Indeed, the official real estate transaction records of Cook County reveal unusual mortgage transactions   as well as transactions in which one party allegedly in disrepute purchases a parcel of land and then turns around and resells it to a political figure who is in a position to do “some good” to the aforesaid party at a bargain price.

Your inquiry is whether or not Greylord created any change in the climate of corruption in Cook County.      The answer is yes.     The system is just as venal as it ever was, however, the transactions are much more subtle and much harder to prove.     If I wish to sell my home to Judge x for ½ of its value, who is to tell me I cannot.     You may assume that the verdict that I receive from Judge x next January is related, but, ****.        Judge x’s daughter is a very bright articulate young woman.     Why should I discriminate against her and not hire her as my personal assistant?      

Let me make it very clear.     We have some bad people in Cook County who are judges, but, we also have many who are dedicated public servants who try to do a good job.      For instance, we have several judges who work obscenely long hours and actually read the law, attempt to understand the facts, and go out of their way so that each litigant enjoys a level playing field.       In my fifty plus years before the Bar, I’ve appeared before hundreds of judges who have made me proud of my profession and more importantly proud to appear before them.     I’ve had opponents who I’d give my right arm for and they for me.      The vast majority of lawyers and judges whom I’ve appeared before (or with) are honorable men and women whom I number among my friends.    However, there is a minority who are the nadir of the profession.     It is indeed fortunate that this collection of miscreants appeared in the twilight of my career rather than in the beginning.      (In my early days I was pugnacious)

I hope that this answered your question.      A lawyer is trained to answer every question with a firm “maybe!”     

Problem judges?????

In answer to your question requesting my opinion as to whether the judges who suspended me are problem judges, I have to make the following statement:     The Judges of the Supreme Court of Illinois are elected.    They are the judges who suspended me.     What they did was to affirm the review panel of the IARDC.      My research on these panels of the IARDC suggests to me that if the IARDC decided that red was green, the panels would attorn and each panel in turn would agree. .       The Supreme Court seems to rubber stamp most of the proceedings of the IARDC.        However, it also appears that an unusual decision is from time to time published.        I refer you to Karavidas 2013 IL 115767 (page 15), and Peel v ARDC 496 US 91 (page 10, 33, 34, 38).      It should be noted that the seven Judges of the Illinois Supreme Court, like all attorneys, have taken an oath to protect the Constitution of Illinois and the United States of America.     It is quite obvious that Mr. Larkin, his commission, his lawyers and his rubber stamp panels have assaulted the First Amendment.      Article 1 Section 12 of the Illinois Constitution directs the entities of Illinois including the Supreme Court to provide a remedy for all wrongs perpetrated in the state.   It therefore follows that the judges of the Supreme Court of Illinois have been specifically directed to protect citizens from grievous wrongs that have been promulgated against the elderly, disabled, and the whistleblowers such as yours truly who protest elder cleansing.

The Sykes case.

Illinois in its statutes has incorporated all the protections necessary to protect senior citizens from exploitation and abuse.      735 ILCS 110/5 guarantees that the rights under the First Amendment and Article 1 section 4 of the Illinois Constitution are FIRST PRINCIPLES!      Section 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3 points out that guardianships are not death sentences, but are only tools to be used to provide healthy, wealthy, happy and useful lives for persons subject to the draconian remedy of guardianship.     Guardianship is a thankless task (and intended to be so) that only well-meaning and well intentioned people would undertake.

My concern with the Mary Sykes case was the allegation and the proof that developed that convinced me that she was railroaded into a guardianship so that her hard earned assets could be expropriated by her older daughter and she could be eliminated.     I refer to this final solution as “ involuntary assisted suicide.”     I knew Mary as I represented her previously in a jury trial.     I know from my experience that the big D is progressive and does not suddenly appear.      I also knew that Mary’s older daughter was married to an individual who suffered from chronic unemployment.    He just could not keep a job.    

As I state in my petition after Mary’s family contacted me, I started my FRCP 11 investigation.    This investigation required me to find out why Dr. Patel’s report was 180 degrees different than the Report of Dr. Amdur.       To my surprise Adam Stern called me and threatened me.       When Stern could not frighten me, Peter Schmiedel called and he reiterated the threats.     (I opened the speaker phone so that my wife could hear each conversation).     They then filed a Supreme Court Rule 137 motion against me.    Rule 137 deals with false pleadings – I had not even inadvertently had contact with any pleading or any proceeding involving the case of In re: Mary Sykes 09 P 4585.

Now I was hooked – Even though there was no jurisdiction I had to address the threats.    To my surprise, Judge Connors found me guilty of a Rule 137 violation.    Exactly what violation it was has been never disclosed, but, the IARDC and these miscreants do not apparently have to be specific.     I am accused by the IARDC of making false statements, yet not a single statement ever been disclosed.     Whatever the false statements are only the IARDC knows!    

Lawyers hold a special position of trust.     We are not robots, and our loyalty is to Lady Justice.     We do not aid and abet criminal conduct and we certainly do not participate in it.     (Maybe I should say – most lawyers!).      When injustice or wrongs occur as citizens, not only do we morally have a duty to address these wrongs, but our oath to defend the Constitution (and 18 USCA 4) require each of us (lawyers) to report to law enforcement the criminal activity.     

I had received threats!      Honest lawyers do not threaten – they do!     Why should Adam Stern threaten me?    Why would he be interested in preventing me from investigating a guardianship?       The answer is obvious and I took the information that I knew and informed law enforcement.     (Gloria Sykes had written a long complaint to the IARDC complaining of the fact her mother was being abused and isolated.    She further complained of the theft of her and her mother’s property and the highly suspect and improper actions of Judge Connors, Cynthia Farenga, Adam Stern, et al.)       I wrote requesting an investigation.

As I dug into the Sykes case, I discovered that I had stepped into a quagmire.     What was going was unbelievable!      The family of Alice Gore reported that their mother was also isolated, stripped of her assets, abused and Attorney Miriam Solo had orchestrated the removal of 29 teeth from Ms. Gore’s mouth so as to mine her gold filings!     

The IARDC Cover up   (The IARDC is the respondent)

The Appellate Court decision finding that the Rule 137 proceedings against me were conducted without jurisdiction was described by Adam Stern as a technicality.      Cynthia Farenga, the original Guardian ad Litem was extremely upset,   as not only was Judge Connors rendered helpless to stop me from exercising my First Amendment Rights but I was now communicating with the Justice Department, Senator Kirk, and more significantly I was pointing out that a breach of fiduciary relationship was a taxable event.     What this meant was that the ‘loot’ from the elder cleansing was taxable income.     Worse yet it was to be taxed as ordinary income rates.

As Blogs were picking up my statements and republishing them, the miscreants understood that it was possible that the Department of the Treasury would assign one of its employees in the intelligence division to examine the finances in the Sykes case.     It also was apparent that Gloria Sykes and a bunch of her mother’s friends and neighbors were letter writers.   They also were waging a vocal protest to the IARDC and law enforcement over the railroading of Mary Sykes into a guardianship wherein her liberty and property could be pirated.      Scott Evans, a former Federal Employee with the CIA, disclosed that he had actually tracked down Mary and found her in an adult day care facility in Naperville, Illinois.      He described the horrid conditions and how Mary had absolutely no stimulation or contact with “alive” people.      He described the other residents as “zombies!”        What upset Judge Connors, and the miscreants was the fact that he chose to disclose this fact after Peter Schmiedel informed the Court of the “wonderful progress” Mary was making.

Mr. Larkin and the IARDC desired to silence me and in particular wanted to stop the flow of letters and e-mails coming from me.     The “safe harbor” letters to Farenga, and Stern were particularly offensive in that I offered to leave them out of any Civil Rights that I might file either for myself or a client if they just did the job that they were required to do.      This job required them to formally report to the Court and allow it appear of record some uncontroverted facts:

1. The guardian was insolvent prior to her appointment, yet today she exhibits all the attributes of wealth including expensive jewelry, lavish parties, expensive vacations, massive remodeling on her home etc.     The big change in the fortunes of the plenary guardian is that she is not a pensioner having retired from her educator position.
2. Mary Sykes had a safety deposit box (as a co-tenant with Gloria).   This box was accessed by the guardian, the contents removed and no one item was inventoried.    This box contained a large number of gold coins.    These coins were those that Mary and Gloria inherited from Mary’s husband and one Albert Biddy.    The coins have a value in excess of a million dollars.
3. Mary’s two siblings and her younger daughter complained that they could not contact Mary.    Telephone contact was forbidden by the plenary guardian.
4. Mary’s contact with other friends and neighbors was cut off.    Even her beloved garden club was forbidden her.
5. Frequent visits to the emergency room by Mary were noted, including one visit in occasioned by Mary losing 10% of her body weight.     Mary had trouble swallowing – the guardian just neglected to get her medical help.

I suggested that either of the GALs report to the Court that I had informed them of these facts and they could not verify any of them if such made them more comfortable.     When I received no reply I reported this fact to law enforcement.      I demanded an Honest, intelligent and comprehensive investigation.     See Farenga letter.    Farenga’s letters are reproduced in Appendix P.

Stripped to its essentials that IARDC complaint against me is that I complied with FRCP and started an investigation before filing a lawsuit, and when attempts to silence were promulgated I wrote to law enforcement and others a complaint the outlined some uncontroverted facts, to wit:

1. The guardianship of Mary violated the Rule of Law and in particular the Constitution in that:
   1. No jurisdiction was obtained as Mary was not served with process that complied with the statutory requirements.    The file indicates that there was no serve on her at all.
   2. No notice of any kind was given to the relatives of Mary Sykes including her two sisters – this is also jurisdictional.
2. Every protection to which Mary was entitled to was ignored.

It is respectfully submitted that the respondent and in particular its director made it clear in their cross-examination of me that this entire proceeding was brought because they could not intimidate me into abandoning my responsibilities as a human being.      The punished was augmented to four years because I showed no remorse.    (An IARDC attorney actually asked me if I was remorseful for writing to the Attorney General of the United States disclosing this elder cleansing of Mary Sykes).   

Effect on me of the Spurious Charges that threatened my livihood.

At first I could not believe that any State of Illinois entity would violate the policy of the State as recited in 735 ILCS 110/5; however, I did know that Illinois was the 2 ^nd most corrupt State in the Union.     Illinois had two governors in Federal prison!      Students could not name 5 governors of the State who had not been jailbirds in the past Century.        It was difficult to pick up a newspaper and not read about some member of the political elite who was not in some sort of criminal proceeding as a defendant.

In my previous half century as a lawyer I had crossed swords with other corrupt political people and I even was the potential victim of a ‘hit.’      The miscreant was apprehended in the alley behind my home.      A neighbor saw him lurking in the alley and called the police.     He confessed to his purpose.     I recognized the current miscreants a scavengers who preyed on the elderly and the disabled.       As Gloria Sykes informed me that all she wanted was her mother to be free from bondage and returned to the life she (Mary) loved I figured that having secured the ‘loot’ the miscreants would consider me a minor nuisance and avoid me.     

Ms. Black who was the IARDC attorney had much more on her mind.      She even tried to intimidate Ms. Sykes and as noted in the appendix in answers to discover pointed out that the administrator had filed his complaint against me without a scintilla of evidence that I had even made a statement that was inaccurate.      This became serious when I was denied the opportunity to know what statements I made that were false, and even though the file of case 09 P 4585 vindicated every statement I made (or any of the friends and family of Mary Sykes had made) my subpoena for the file was quashed.    Not only was the charges brought against me a secret, but any evidence that might inadvertently demonstrate the perfidy of the proceeding was not to be allowed to get within a country mile of the proceeding.

What was particularly interesting and disturbing was the fact that the Supreme Court of the United States had ruled on the issues I was facing and pointed out that the First Amendment protected even outright lies if they were content related.      Thus, argued the respondent you could sell violent videos to children, picket funerals of dead hero, falsely claim to be a mental of honor winner, however you could report criminal behavior of judicial officials.      So disingenuous was the proceeding that the IARDC attorney made statements concerning a fifty year old Sawyer case (decided by the Supreme Court) that were contradicted in the last paragraphs of the opinion.      The ruling of the Court was 100% contrary to the statement by an ARDC attorney.      After I quoted the ruling word for word as stated by the court future statements by the IARDC do not cite the case.     Sawyer unless over-ruled should cause the Supreme Court of the United States to reverse the decision of the Illinois Supreme Court that affects me.

Final thoughts

All my life, I’ve enjoyed the practice of law.     The attorneys that I’ve had dealings with were wonderful.     By accident I learned of the credo.     It was very simple.     In one particularly hotly requested case my opponent took me aside and stated:

“I am your only friend in this courtroom.      Your client is fickle, my client hates you with a passion, and the judge thinks we are both candidates for Dunning (state insane facility) and in particular he hates us because we are keeping him from the track – therefore I am your only friend – treat me well!”

It was true.    

As I stated previously most judges had a sense of humor and/or were very personable and desirous of providing a fair trial.      I was not unusual for a judge to try to level the playing field when one side or the other had an unfair advantage.      A young novice attorney was treated with respect, but, an experience trial judge would try to make the nervous lawyer a little more comfortable.      On several occasions when I was in my first year in practice the judge would tell a joke and make me laugh.      On another occasion the Judge took me and my opponent out to lunch.      To be candid in the 1960 up until Operation Greylord disclosed the full extent of the corruption in Cook County the majority of honest judges made their courtrooms businesslike and productive.      Court proceedings were challenging and living!     

One judge was faced with a problem.     He knew both lawyers (one of them was me).     The case was a one of first impression and the issue was one that no matter how he decided there would be an appeal.     The facts were complex but the basic facts upon which the issue was to be decided boiled down to whether or not the ‘due on sale clause’ would be applicable to a 2 ^nd sale of the property.      His question to the two lawyers was:   “Who wants to the appellant in this appeal?”      We both knew that the Appellant had a slight advantage.       I and my opponent both indicated that we wanted to be appellant.    The judge took a coin from his pocket and looked at my opponent and said: “you call it!”

The Appellate court also had a sense of humor – they reversed the trial court order ruling that there was some undisclosed factual dispute!        

I promised Mr.   Larkin and the IARDC that if I was suspended or disbarred he would have my full attention.     He has it.      I’ve continued to write to law enforcement, contribute to the blogs fighting elder cleansing and demanding that law enforcement carry out its duty of enforcing the laws.      I’ve suggested that when an elder is railroaded into a guardianship, isolated from her family, her friends, her activities, and her assets are forfeit such is a felony.     I’ve therefore reported this criminal activity to law enforcement and urged every victim and the victim’s family members to report the miscreant activity to law enforcement including the names of those who aid and abet the terrible actions.         I’ve also aided and abetted as many family members of victims of elder cleansing in contacting to law enforcement and seeking legal redress for the victim and his/her family.

On the legal front Ms. Denison and I have filed a 1983 action against Larkin and the guardians, I’ve assisted Ms. Denison in a copyright infringement action against the IARDC and its attorneys who have infringed on her copyright.     I’ve encouraged Attorney Amu to contact Supreme Court press and have it set up and publish his Petition for Cert to the Supreme Court.     Mr. Amu in my opinion has solid evidence a racial nexus in the IARDC’s assault on his First Amendment Rights.      

In Summary, I am a Citizen of the United States of America.     I believe in the credo of America and the rights enumerated by the Bill of Rights are sacred to me.     I am not a Pollyanna but I do believe that I personally had a duty to stand up for the principles that are represented by America Constitution.      Justice Douglas and Justice Black have enunciated my personal views as to what the interpretation that must be placed on the Bill of Rights.        If our democracy is as we planned it, it should withstand all the unpopular opinions including those of miscreants.     In a word:   “I may disagree with your opinion, but I will fight to the death to preserve your right to express it”       Thus, unless I am a hypocrite and untrue to me I have no choice but the fight off the Assault on my personal First Amendment Rights and fight like the devil to bring justice to a little old lady who was railroaded into a guardianship, stripped of her liberty, human rights, civil rights and property.     If I do less I dishonor me, my heritage, my parents, and most importantly you.    On December 8, 1941 my father and his five brothers gave up everything and enlisted in the Armed forces.    How can I run from criminals who are so cowardly as to victimize the elderly and the disabled!

[1] A squared plus b squared equal c squared.

Click to access NYU-Annual-Survey-68-2-Roig.pdf

This law review article has a very good discussion of how law enforcement wants large corporations (IBM, GE, Dell, Sony, Toshiba, etc.) to build in “back door” subroutines into their software so that when law enforcement obtains a warrant to wire tap or search, they can easily download data, collect emails, and monitor the the bejeezus out of everyone.

It is my understanding that NSA has collected billions of transmissions of communications between ordinary US Citizens under rubber stamped, invasive and overreaching court orders from a court specially designed to obtain these–and the court complies! More interesting, is the fact while they have obtained “a lot of stuff”, apparently that “lot of stuff” is pretty much encrypted and they don’t have the keys and/or have not paid for them, or the encryption designers aren’t interested or will not turn over these keys.

On the otherhand, this blog provides a ton of information to law enforcement officials about a need to investigate the like of Gore, Tyler, Sykes, Wyman, LL, Schwartz, and others, just nothing is done and the ARDC routinely dismisses complaints on these cases.

Sigh.

JoAnne

new  quote:

Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312, 321 (1988) “Our cases indicate that as a content-based
restriction on political speech in a public forum, [the Act in question] must be subjected
to the most exacting scrutiny.”

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Jul 26, 2014 7:09 AM
To: Chicago FBI , Eric Holder , Probate Sharks , Nasga Us , “J. Ditkowsky” , Harry Heckert , Tim NASGA , “JoAnne M. Denison” , Matt Senator Kirk , Janet Phelan , Chicago Tribune , GLORIA Jean SYKES , Cook County States Attorney , SUNTIMES , Illinois ARDC , “FBI- (” , “Y. ACLU” , Ginny Johnson , “JoAnne M. Denison” , BILL DITKOWSKY , Scott Evans , Kathie Bakken , Cook Sheriff , “Foxnews_7D7B711AF105DCA690AB56169C0FF242 (” , “Mr. Lanre Amu — Honest Atty Unfairly Persecuted By ARDC” , Diane Nash , Edward Carter , “ComplaintAdmin ADA (CRT)” , “Chicagotonight (” , “tips@cbschicago.com” , Bev Cooper , “Jim (” , ISBA Main Discussion Group , The Disability Discussion Docket – Official E-mail List of the Commission On Disability Right , “information@iardc.org” , “info@bettergov.org” , Human Rights Watch , The Wall Street Journal , Fiduciary Watch , Rudy Bush , Rabbi Moshe Soloveitchik , Len Holland , 60m Cbs News , WSJ Reporter , YJ Draiman
Subject: JUDICIAL OFFICIALS WHO WILL LIVE IN INFAMY

Certain Judges will live in infamy. Their corruption is infamous. Some went to jail in the Operation Greylord scenario, and others got away with it. Illinois has a sorry history which continues to this day. In Chicago legendary corruption is the ‘name of the game!’ The distinction between Chicago corruption of yesterday and that of today is the fact that if you kept your nose clean the ‘bad guys’ were respectful of you and took a wide berth.
What I note is that they understood that if you run into an individual who will not play, his/her integrity should be respected as sometime in the future you are going to have access to so as to be able to seek a safe harbor. Thus, while I received many very attractive and lucrative offers, I accepted none. Some of the offers were tainted and some were very straight. I wanted no part of any transaction that was not 100% Kosher or had some aspect that could be deemed not Kosher. I recognized that if you played in the mud you were bound to get dirty. I was not afraid to get dirty – I just wanted to be able to look myself in the mirror and say “ I like that person!” As an example I was offered a membership preference in a club that would have increased the cash flow of my law practice by a substantial factor. I had previously made application and was told that I was number 500 on the list of potential membership candidates. A member of the political elite invited me to the club and informed me that certain people felt it was not a good career move for me to be part of a particular law case and if I was to withdraw as the attorney for the plaintiff I would find my membership application approved immediately. I rejected the offer – I did not become a member of the club and I continued to have a law practice that was like every other practice – feast and famine.
In my half decade at the bar, offers flowed regularly and I rejected each one that I felt to be tainted. By pure luck I avoided trouble. By staying out of the mud I found that when a member of the political elite of that time needed to consult as to a problem (including many that did not involve the law) I was always available (pro bono) to lend an ear. Much of the time I was a depository of many secrets that could embarrass many of the elite. I’ve kept every one of the secrets and have no intention of disclosing a single one even though all the principals are long gone. I have systematically forgotten everything including who told what to me, and most importantly the subject matter.
Until the Mary Sykes case I was protected. Yes there were attempts to bully me, but, magically the prospective bully recognized that having a friend who he/she could confide in and be assured that his/her secrets would be safe was much better than have an enemy who not only saw life in stark black and white, but, who felt that ******. Sometimes it took a while for a potential enemy to realize that he/she held the key to peace. Treating me with respect and my client appropriately made my short memory forget all about the perfidy that had occurred. Thus, it was amusing to Sam Moy to sit me at a table populated by members of the political elite who had previously announced that they considered me an enemy and who he knew I lacked total respect. (He also placed a couple of neutrals at the table) He loved to watch the interaction between 180 degree opposites. It always amused me when a “sworn enemy” would appear at my home or office and ask me to speak in private. He/she would then ask me for my advice as to intimate personal matters, business transactions, or pending legal problems. I knew why I was the confident! I also knew that the information that was imparted to me was done is strict confidence and my availability, candor and honesty were the secret to my well being. An honest enemy will not sugar coat a problem you are facing!
Today the world has changed. The political elite do not understand that if you develop a cadre of ‘yes men’ around you, when you need advice and candor you do not get it. As an example, had **** come to me after the theft of Mary/Gloria Sykes’ gold coins was made public, I would have listened to all the excuses, all the rationalizations, and all the theories on how they could and would get away with it and then advised **** to: 1) report the theft to the court. I would have and did suggest that the report specify that I (KKD) had informed him of it, and 2) get away from ***** as they were just bad people.
(I gratuitously made suggestion 1 in a safe harbor letter – I felt that if ***** would do his job Judge Connors would in a fit of self-preservation also do her job and CYA. I was wrong. Instead he went screaming to Jerome Larkin in agony! He needed protection as it appears that *****. Larkin was happy to aid and abet the criminal conspiracy to deny a senior citizen of her liberty and her hard earned assets).
The Evidence deposition of Judge Connors provides her a permanent place in history. Few judges would proudly demonstrate that she administered a statute for a decade without reading it. The two cases explaining how jurisdiction was obtained were obviously never read by the Judge. The standard for determining if a citizen should be deprived of civil rights and liberty interests was ignored by the judge. The core value = i.e. level playing field was set to rest by her words that the same result would be reached ****.
This is not the situation involving the Chief Judge of the Chancery Division (David Shields) who got caught taking a 200 dollar bribe to fix a case, or Judge Holtzer who demanded the lawyers who came before him purchase life insurance from his wife. Indeed it is not Judge Stuart *****. It is not Judge B. Fain Tucker who at the end of the day was so drunk she had to be carried from the bench. It is the nightmare of every lawyer – it is and was venal corruption.
The ‘score’ of judges who went to jail in the Operation Greylord affair and the several score of judges who had to resign or face jail were minor miscreants compared to the Judges who were so corrupt as to allow the cottage industry of elder cleansing to prosper in their courtrooms. Yes, Mr. Larkin, I believe that not one of the judges received a white envelope full of cash. As has been indicated bribing a public official can be done in many ways. I‘ve explained how it is done in other e-mails. Any remuneration received by a judicial official not paid by a government treasury check that deducts FICA is highly suspect. It is most probably a bribe and the public official receiving it should be investigated. As an example a discount received by a public official or a judicial official on a parcel of real estate is a bribe!!! It is an Illegal remuneration no matter how it is structured.
Whether Judge X is provided an orange jumpsuit or not he will live in infamy as he/she has violated his/her oath to defend the Constitution and denied a citizen of his/her core American Rights. The Illinois Attorney Registration and Distortion commission may decree that this e-mail is ethically challenged, but, it is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and its communication to law enforcement is required by 18 USCA 4. The aiding and abetting of the assault on the First Amendment is a violation of 18 USCA 371. [1]

[1] As Mr. Larkin has attempted to violate my First Amendment Rights, this communication is another serious Himmel complaint against Attorney Jerome Larkin. Even though such a request is futile due to the Corruption in the State of Illinois Courts demand is made for an HONEST complete and comprehensive investigation of the Cottage industry of Elder Cleansing and the use of public funds by Jerome Larkin to aid and abet elder cleansing and the War on the elderly and disabled.

Ken Ditkowsky
http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

And while Mr. Larkin is at an thorough and honest investigations of attorneys, he needs to look closely at Sykes, Wyman, Gore, LL, Drabik, Tyler, Spera, etc. and others and start an appropriate investigation–all of these cases were denied, by the ARDC, competent and thorough investigations and the attorneys were not brought into scrutiny for these actions.
While Larkin is gearing up to boot me out or suspend me for speaking out and telling everyone truthfully these stories and that the behavior is wrong, immoral, unconscionable and not worthy of an attorney, this charity, JUSTICE 4 EVERY 1 is gearing up to get deeper into the Cook County probate files and publish more and do more about the corruption.
How is it that summary eviction orders get handed out like candy to a 72 year old Husband in a wheel chair by a certain Judge X just based upon the say so of Guardian’s counsel? And how is that Guardian can harass and remove locks from the domicile of Husband and nothing is done, except when counsel appears on the case?
The standard of Probate court is the best interests of the ward, and when the ward’s Husband is being terrorized by the Guardian and his attorney with impunity, there are in fact serious problems in the courtroom.
It is time for volunteer trained guardians to get involved in these cases. Surveys in probate court have to be taken to spot problems, there has to be oversight on Citations to Recover assets and eviction orders, until these procedures come into compliance with laws. We also have to make sure that when other family members are legally evicted–an actual summons and complaint, that they do not lose their home without appropriate legal assistance.

http://voices.yahoo.com/randy-quaid-crazy-estate-theft-claims-parallel-legal-7302964.html?cat=49

Apparently even the rich and famous are discredited in probate court as massive thefts occur. Mr. and Mrs. Randy Quaid are being labeled as cray and drug addicted, as they tell the story of miscreant lawyers creating bogus trusts to steal money as assets fall off accountings and inventories.

These are things NASGGA, probate sharks, and other blogs choir sing about each day, day in and day out.

This article also has stories from across the US where probate victims are besmirched, labelled crazy and addicted–all without any basis to the claims at all. Why? It’s an effective smoke screen for the miscreants to steal with impunity, as is in Illinois where the ARDC droitly engages in whitewashes and cover ups for favored attorneys, connected attorneys and those that grab the money of disableds who often cannot speak for themselves, and even if they managed to do so, the response by probate court is “shut up.”

JoAnne

http://www.examiner.com/article/silverado-senior-living-sued-for-false-imprisonment-and-battery-of-elderly-1

One of the most interesting issues in this article is that a 92 year old woman from Texas is suing her captors–attorneys and a nursing home involved when she was never deemed incompetent, but she was forced into a locked down facility, her two beloved sons were strenuously isolated from her, and her life fell apart.

According to the article, her sons needed court supervision, they had to pay for, of course, they gave their mother cell phones that were never delivered, mom was given strong chemical restraints–by persons who were not able to diagnose or prescribe, etc.

This is a great article because it tells the truth about what can happen to elderly, wealthy persons to ruin their lives–and without a single court order.

Ruby is now smiling that she can again see her sons. She is no longer chemically restrained, drooling and chewing on her hand, babbling incoherently. Her cognitive skills were just fine, thank you very much.

JoAnne

Answer: nothing. That’s right, thy could find no evidence of attorney misconduct when Alice Gore, age 99, was separated from about 20 close family members by Mirian Solo, then 29 gold teeth were pulled from her mouth. A mentally ill granddaughter was appointed Guardian by the court–with the GAL fully well knowing she had a history of being mentally ill and in and out of psych hospitals. Alice Gore, at age 99 was then dehydrated and starved to death, per reports from her close family members, Ken and Bev Cooper who do the show, Cooper’s Corner, available on the North Shore and on You Tube.

Bev and Ken have been working relentlessly for justice on the 18th floor of the Daley center, probate division. See below and please pray for them and for justice.

JoAnne

—–Original Message—–
From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Jul 19, 2014 9:24 AM
To: Lucius Verenus
Cc: “JoAnne@justice4every1.com” , Eric Holder , “FBI- (” , “ComplaintAdmin ADA (CRT)” , Harry Heckert , Tim NASGA , Matt Senator Kirk
Subject: Re: ARDC

Ken and Bev
Are you surprised that an organization that is administered by Jerome Larkin should find there is nothing wrong with mining an elderly woman’s teeth for their gold filings!!! This is the same organization that does not recognize the Rule of Law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States of America and is actively conducting a War on the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights. The racial discrimination conducted against Attorney L. Amu by larkin and his coherts is just part of the credo that has polluted our State. The assault on the First Amendment is the hall mark of corrupt political figures worldwide and why should Larkin and Illinois be any different.
Illinois is the 2nd most corrupt State in the United States and it is estimated that every person pays $3008.00 per year to support the corruption. As the dead vote in Illinois is not fair in “wonderland” that the dead and the near dead should continue to pay their fair share?
I copied Mr. Holder on this e-mail as I feel that at the very least the 1.5 million dollars liberated from the Estate of Gore should be taxed by the United States of America. I have copied the Illinois Attorney General’s office so that they recover the unpaid taxes due the State of Illinois. Pursuant to 18 USCA 371 Mr. Larkin should be forced the contribute to the taxable income due the United STates of America and the State of Illinois. The breach of fiduciary relationship is a taxable event.
[As I explained previously – the taxes due are ordinary income. The failure to report this income is tax fraud! Certainly as an attorney Mr. Larkin, even though he is the administrator of the IARDC, should be award of this fact!]
I received a telephone call yesterday that was very encouraging. The long and short is that Attorney Miriam Solo’s mentors are in a world of trouble. It appears that the FBI is recruiting a choir and at least two of the people very close to Solo’s primary mentor are reported to be auditioning. It is there no wonder Larkin is trying to discourage further complaints against Solo et al. He certainly does not want to raise any further inquiry in the F Estate in Florida! Incidentally no one ever got back to me as to what his relationship might be with the Larkin Hospital down in South Florida!
Ken Ditkowsky
http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/
From: Lucius Verenus
To: Kenneth Ditkowsky
Cc: “JoAnne@justice4every1.com”
Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 8:58 AM
Subject: ARDC
​Just received ARDC response stuff back. They think Martin, Solo and crew are great people. Guess who they are investigating and waiting for a response…Trausch? He’s dead and they are proceeding with zeal. What a world. I will scan and send you the letters today. The Supreme court of IL responded to Barbara Cooper…stating that they have nothing to do with the ARDC.

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Jul 20, 2014 6:44 AM
To: Curt Sahakian
Subject:

Altered transcripts of proceedings

JoAnne,
I understand completely why the Illinois Attorney Registration and Deception Commission would object to any attempt to verify the accuracy of the Transcripts of Proceedings. When a government or quasi government agency goes rogue and is being used by its administrator to aid and abet criminal activity it must act with secrecy and must create a paper trail to protect not only the criminals it protects but the continued misuse of government funds. Thus, Mr. Larkin and those who work with him will fight you to the death to maintain secrecy. The mere fact that any objection to making the audio recordings available to you so that you could ascertain the accuracy is an admission of wrongdoing by Larkin.
In my half a century in the practice of law I was surprised by the low level of professionalism exhibited by the IARDC attorneys. The outright tampering with witnesses and subordination of perjury was just shocking as it was so open. The communications of Leah Black with witness Gloria Sykes in any real court of law would have resulted in her being held in contempt and removed from the case. This conduct was again repeated by the attorneys assigned to your case. Judge Stuart’s outright perjury – which was disclosed in cross examination and is the subject of your inquiry as to the tampering with the transcripts of proceedings is consistent.
Fortunately the United States of America has not revoked its core values and even though the miscreants who promulgate elder cleansing have seized the Illinois justice system that is supposed to protect the elderly and disabled the Federal Justice System still operates. Therefore, I am forwarding this e-mail to the United States of America pursuant to 18 USCA 4. When Mr. Larkin is hauled before the Bar of Justice the Federal Court prosecuting him and his cronies will have more evidence of his 18 USCA 371 violations and his personal participation in the health care frauds (including elder cleansing).
Illinois is clearly one of the most corrupt state in America and our political elite feel compelled to demonstrate their perfidy on a daily basis. Elections are only a few months away. Keep the Faith! These crooks can fool some of the people some of the time, but they cannot fool all of the people all of the time. As I have been pointing out – Larkin and the elder cleansers are playing with fire. If the Internal Revenue Service and the Illinois Department of Revenue properly interpret the tax codes and enforce them all benefits that the miscreants obtain is ordinary taxable income. Dollars to donuts – these benefits have not been disclosed on the Federal and State tax returns. This I am certain that amongst his other misdeeds tax evasion hangs heavy on the shoulders of Jerome Larkin and his cronies. HIS OBJECTION TO YOU HAVING THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE THE AUDIO TAKEN AT YOUR HEARING IS JUST MORE EVIDENCE THAT HE IS AWARE OF AND INTENDED TO COMMIT THE FELONIES THAT HE ULTIMATELY WILL BE CHARGED.
It has always been a mystery to me as to how these people figured they could get away with the very crimes that we fought WW2 to extinguish.

Ken Ditkowsky
http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/

A recent articles discusses many of the issues we find right now in probate in Illinois.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2001/apr/07/the-probate-pit/

The article points out some very interesting aspects of probate, such as a ward can pay one lawyer to have them declared incompetent, and then right away or even at the same time, they must pay for a lawyer to get out of the guardianship and gain independence.

The article also notes paying exorbitant prices for mundane services such as shoe or gift shopping for a ward, making dental and medical appointments, managing medical care (recently I learned of a case where Rehab Assist, an Esformes company beloved by the 18th floor of the Daley center is getting $5,000 per month for being a “medical case supervisor” on a patient that just has standard dementia, and who would never get this service if the estate were small or the ward indigent.  Go figure.

JoAnne

Dear Readers;

As many of you know, I moved from Fremont to Touhy to help out Ken Ditkowsky when the ARDC suddenly, and without warning summarily suspended his law license, I moved to his offices and helped the best I could with transferring his cases and making sure that clients were not disappointed or left behind in the wake of Ken’s being honest and truthful, despite all odds.

Subsequently, Ken’s office was flooded with sewage (black water) due to a broken stack pipe.  It happened once when I came (about mid March) and then because they did not replace the bathroom stacks, it happened again, about mid May.  Landlord (Imperial) did not seem to care much, and they did no black water remediation the second time around, so after a couple of weeks, in the heat and humidity, sever mold started to grow.  Ken and I emailed building management, but received no response. Then, Ken’s long time friend and CPA, Joe Dubow got quite ill and had to leave every day very early due to exhaustion.  He thought it was a cold.  He went to his doctor.  I gave him Lypospheric vitamin C, plenty of it, and despite this, he was very ill. I told him if that didn’t knock it out, it had to be something, very, very serious.  It was. It was the black water mold.

To shorten the story, I have to move again. Sigh.  But all during this time, I will continue to blog and not let any of my probate and court corruption victims down. So continue to send your stories and comments and I will help you all out and continue to publish during yet a 3rd move.

I can’t stay here, so we’re moving to the 1st floor, which is very good because many probate victims come in wheel chairs.  I now have plenty of parking, which is not the case with 1512 N Fremont, as many of you will recall.  That building also had severe problems in that I work all hours, often leave late at night and that neighborhood isn’t all that great.  Niles is much better.  Plus, there is tons of parking out back here.  And it’s 10 min. from my house.  Many benefits all around.

If anyone has time and ability, I will be moving in items from my house and garage which were stored during this transition period.  I also have a POD with all my files (and your files) which will be arriving first thing tomorrow.  I will be here.  Then I have a hearing in the afternoon.  Sigh.  Email me if you can help me move or you know of anyone free or cheap (ie, free pizza or Al’s Beef, which is right next door).

So bring me your poor, your tired (of court) and weary (of court corruption) and I will help you.  I spend tons of time on helping people.  Now I need a bit of help moving to my new office so I can continue to do good work for the many victims of corruption in the Cook County Court system and nationwide.

If you can’t do this because you lack funds or physical strength, just let me know and I will pray for you.

joanne

From: ginny johnson
Sent: Jul 16, 2014 12:15 AM
To: ginny johnson
Subject: Clerk of Superior Court Lorrin Freeman and her Rubber Stamp
This was sent to the Clerk of Superior Court, tho I believe most likely the Presiding Judge is responsible and should ban all the players from his or her courtrooms.

• hitting golf balls
• exercising 3 days a week 30 min. riding a bike, lifting weights, laughing
• living at his home, eating great home cooked meals, going to lunch w friends
• playing with his dog
• visiting neighbors of 40
• Driving his car
• No Cancer
• No Heart Conditions
• No Broken Bones
• No Arthritis
• No Diabetes
• No Stress
• No Agitation
• No Aggravation
• Just happy living with his daughter Ginny

http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/

http://www.acslaw.org/ACS%20Justice%20at%20Risk%20(FINAL)%206_10_13.pdf

Janet says the following discussions will be featured at 12:30 pm in chicago in about 20 min.

the details:

WZRD is on the air in Chicago at 88.3 FM.

I will be discussing my book, EXILE, with particular attention to the guardianship issue, along with the plethora of other issues raised in my book.

Call in number to be on the air is 773.442.4516 Thanks!  Calls will be taken after about one hour of show programming.

Janet P

From: kenneth ditkowsky [Edit Address Book]
To: JoAnne M Denison , JK, Lucius Verenus Probate Sharks , Bev Cooper Probate Sharks
Subject: Re: Legal Real Estate Fraud
Date: Jul 13, 2014 6:35 AM
of course publish – this fraud has to stop. One way to make it stop is to take the profit out of it.

As you know my family is not unknown within the Jewish community of Chicago. My uncle owned a company known as Society Cleaners, Hyde Park Laundry etc. My father, and two uncles were well known in the Medical field.

Thus, it was not unexpected that as the years progressed I would obtain some business from or related to the nursing home cartel. One afternoon a young woman came into the office with a ‘lawyer letter.’ It seems that she was the beneficiary of a will, and assignments of some valuable real estate here in Chicago and there were claimants in New York who had the audacity to suggest that some undue influence had occurred and their father’s entire estate was left to this woman and not his own children.

It seems that the father, after his wife of some forty years had died, met another woman married her and moved to Chicago. Unfortunately, the second marriage estranged him from his children and visits were limited to some telephone calls and annual get togethers The 2nd wife found her aging husband’s health to be a problem and placed him into a nursing home for extended care. Soon afterwards she died and Daddy became flotsam. Rich flotsam, but nevertheless prey to the worthy cabal.

I do not know how the Will and the transfers took place, but I do know that they did and the letter was a fly in the ointment. The ‘tale’ that the young woman befriended the lonely old man who felt abandoned by his family and **** did not ring credible. I had visited an elderly client laying in his own urine in the nursing home operated by the young woman’s father! A telephone call to the lawyer in New York verified my suspicions and I informed the lady that I was not interested in representing her. (Her retainer was very attractive, but I have never been in the business of exploiting anyone)

Looking back it is very clear to me that the family was discouraged from visiting father, not that they were anxious to do so – he was a pain – and he was a 1000 miles away. They had their own complicated lives. It did not take much to gain the victim’s confidence and to get him to sign over his estate and this was done. The F estate in Florida involving Miriam Solo has many similar aspects.

Illinois enacted its guardianship statute to protect the ward from this type of exploitation. (It says so in 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3). When JUdges do not read the statute they administer and guardians are unprincipled the elder cleansers have a field day. When Mr. Larkin and the IARDC openly and notoriously promulgate a ‘cover up’ of the criminal conduct the public severely harmed. This is the reason the word has to get out and we need proactive law enforcement. The miscreants and their protectors must be made examples of and should spend some time in orange jumpsuits.

Yes – publish. Let’s make elder cleansing as difficult as possible.

Ken Ditkowsky
http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/

From: JoAnne M Denison
To: kenneth ditkowsky ; JK; Lucius Verenus Probate Sharks ; Bev Cooper Probate Sharks
Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2014 11:42 PM
Subject: Re: Legal Real Estate Fraud

Ken and Joe, very good, okay to publish?

And I have heard that properties can go thru 3 or 4 layers of resale in probate to keep it quiet.

To start, deal no.1, they let the grass and weeds grow, they leave dirt on the walls, they do not repaint. Appliances are stripped from the premises and sold separately on the cheap at estate sales where they are not washed or refurbished. Window treatments not updated and not removed. The house is shut tight and water left to drip in the bathroom so it gets a musty smell. Spider webs and dust balls blossom and flourish. Newspaper is put on windows, sometimes some are broken and boarded up. The real pros also cut the phone lines, cable lines, etc. Perhaps they can shut off or turn down the heat and get some pipes to burst and make a mess which is never fixed. Then, when the house is properly krausened, it is put on the market, BUT the realtor is in bed with the powers that be and no one can get a showing or buyers are told there was a murder there or anything to get rid of legit buyers. Whatever it takes. 6 months on the market and bad photos, they do a 30-50% deal. probate judge is “horrified” by conditions but is told there is not enough money for repairs (even if there is money, she is in on it too because these are powerful attorneys who got her there or can keep her there) After that first sale, then, then shill no. 2 paints, cuts grass, fixes windows, mess from burst pipes, the house is clean, but outdated. The musty smell may still be there. The home is sold time no. 2 for 70% of appraised value. Finally “finishing shill” no. 3 makes a full blown investment with a modern kitchens and baths, the home is detailed and 100 percent cleaned up. It is sold for 100 to 110 per cent of it’s value, often to a VA or HUD buyer. 3nd shill, second VIG. *very important gain”
The cycle is complete. It took 2 years so no one suspects, no one can say anything.

But if you look at the property records of certain people, generally relatives of probate lawyers (cynthia farenga/michael crowley) there are hundreds of “property transactions” in 6 or 7 years. plenty of vigs to go around.

The FBI does not see or hear anything, nor do the states attorneys. Since they’re really not taking the FBI “minimum” of $500k in any particular deal, it’s much harder, if not impossible to trace.

But the probate attorneys and relatives are beholding to some real goons and thugs in the international cartel of probate shenanigans. if you speak or hint about the cartel, you are whacked. permanently.

joanne

—–Original Message—–
From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Jul 12, 2014 8:51 PM
To: JK
Subject: Re: Legal Real Estate Fraud

The answer is no. The most profit is obtained by selling the real estate at the lowest possible price to a nominee. the nominee then holds the property until it can be maximized and then it is resold at profit.

In Sykes the home of Mary was appraised prior to the guardianship at 700 K. Most of the value was in the land. The nominee sale was for approx. 300K. The nominee when the smoke clears will sell the real estate for 700k and obtain a 400 k profit to be divided amongst the miscreants.

As the Court will rubber stamp the transactions the theft is full proof.

Ken Ditkowsky
http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/

From: a blog fan
To: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2014 3:04 PM
Subject: Re: Legal Real Estate Fraud

The question is, why aren’t the probate attorneys (who would receive a percentage of a deal in probate) and their cronys interested in getting the “best deal” possible?

On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 8:38 AM, kenneth ditkowsky wrote:

Unfortunately there are few in law enforcement who are not and were not aware of the scam that the probate criminals use in obtaining profits from a ‘ward’s’ real estate. It has been another of those ‘dirty little secrets’ that no one talks about. The only distinction between today and yesterday is the fact that Attorney regulatory authorities are actively enforcing a code of silence to protect the profiting attorneys and their co=conspirators.

When I first got into the practice of law I created a stir by thwarting one of these scenarios. I was involved in partition lawsuit. [This is a lawsuit in which two joint tenants have a dispute and as they cannot agree to a buy out, or the sale of the property one of the two owners files a suit to compel the sale] I represented the defendant who was a joint owner of a farm. The Court correctly ruled that as both the parties were joint owners (Joint tenancy) pursuant to statute the court could sell the property. The appraisal was ordered by the commissioner and as I was a novice a low ball appraisal was submitted to the court.

As you probably know I had some experience that I had not made public and I sat quietly by and waited to be raped. The Court approved the appraisal and the property was set for sale. The minimum bid was 65% of the appraised value. The appraised value was about 60% of value. To bid you have to meet certain criterion and settlement is in two stages – at closing 10% in cash or equivalent and 10 days payment in full.

On the day of sale, out of nowhere I bid the actual value of the real estate. The shill who had been instructed to bid $100.00 above whatever my first bid was, immediately increased the bid by $100.00. An onlooker who knew me could not help himself and laughed out-loud. The trap had been sprung, and now the games player had been outfoxed by his own avarice. My client was off the hook and guaranteed a fair price. I made no further bids.

Today I could not get away with such a stunt, and my bid would have been the winning bid; however, the experienced attorneys on the other side anticipated my move and had prepared for it. The expected that I had authority for one or two bids and I would low ball on bid 1. No one expected a full price bid!

For weeks afterwards the gambit was laughed over at the courthouse. Even my opponent was so amused by the gambit he told my uncle about it at a party and laughed at being outfoxed by such a novice as me. My uncle did not tell him about my employment or the training that I was receiving. (The case settled not because of anything that I did or did not do, but because a few days later just prior to a settlement conference President Kennedy was killed. The death of the president placed such a pall over all of us that when I arrived at the settlement conference the other attorney said make me your best offer – I did and he accepted it on behalf of his client.)

Ken Ditkowsky
http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/

from Ken Ditkowsky, who, now retired from active practice, courtesy of the IARDC is now digging deeper and deeper into the problem and finding more amazing facts about Elder Cleansing and in particular, its International nature.

The Elder Cleansing Cartel

It is not the elected official who engages in mischief who is sinister, it is the nameless faceless bureaucrat who implements the policy who frustrates and confounds us. Sometimes however we are fortunate to be able to zero in on some of the bad guys, expose them and bring them to justice.
The health care frauds are pervasive. The cartel has correctly recognized that health care is one of those untouchable subjects. To be against furnishing health care to the unwashed flotsam is not only unthinkable but un-American. Cradle to the grave health care is mandated by modern society even if shortens the life of many. I am not debating the policy as it is a given; however, it does foster a new type of human parasite.
This individual is not a mafia don, but a well-educated member of society who is the mainstay of his ‘church’ and a pillar of his community – as well as a cancer. He is lauded for his contributions to charity at the very moment his minions are prospecting in the mouth of victim for her gold filings. His minions include lawyers, doctors, members of the public, political elite, and a host of others. Dutifully they work toward on goal – acquiring wealth! [And invoking a Code of Attorney Silence, those who violate it are severely and gruelingly put on trial, given no discovery, and then skewered worse than an attorney thief of $90 million (Seth Gillman is still not prosecuted by the ARDC nor his license removed).]
Operationally, the Enron model is followed and any phase of the criminal enterprise that is uncovered by law enforcement appears to be a separate independent situation divorced from the other corporations. Thus, when an Omnicare situation is filed 150 million dollars and there is a bit a publicity the core operation and its tentacles are safe and protected.
The structure of the Cartel varies slightly from area to area, but it appears that model is so well thought out that the miscreants have essentially created a shadow society that is eating away at the our Constitution and political structure – all at our expense.
Starting with a ‘cash cow’ operation such as a Hospice facility or Nursing home the ‘don’ obtains the lauding acknowledgement of his community for his self-dedication and charitable contributions. The ‘cash cow’ is financed by solicitation and participation by members of community. The “don” informs his investors that he is forming a ‘health care’ facility (nursing home or hospice) and he needs ‘limited partners.’ He is of course picked the investors because they have a few dollars and they have some influence in the community. They are promised a ‘share in the business’ and are guaranteed that the return will be x % a year. The management, risk et al will be all assume by the ‘Don”
Using the investment as seed money initially a beautiful state of the art facility is constructed and takes shape in the community. Picked public officials give their blessing and government fawns over it contribution to health care. Behind the glitter is scum that is beyond belief all cleverly designed to garner public dollars. On the surface the facility is a modern alternative to extended hospital stays and their historical expense.
Hospitals are regularly monitored by government and the medical profession. Deficiencies cannot be covered up and thus a regular compliment of registered nurses, competent doctors cannot be avoided. In addition very expensive medical devices have to be routinely used, maintained, and updated. Concealment is possible, but not for long; however, with government corruption a given a well-connected nursing home Hospice facility or nursing home can indefinitely conceal a multitude of practices. Federal inspections are rare, and State inspections are announced in advance.
Government pays well for health care services and operates on the basis of being content if the paper trail is neat and clean all is well. Thus, examples of care are as follows: Physical therapy consists of removing the parent from his bed and placing him in a wheel chair in the hall. The doctor makes rounds at regular intervals. This consists of slowing his vehicle down to 15 mph as he drives on a road adjacent to the facility. Each service to the greatest extent possible is provided by an outside, but related company. In fact the cartel controls everything and regulates the charges so that the proper paper trail is provided. For its accommodation when elections occur the compliant political figures are remembered by the operators of the nursing home.
The cadre of connected individuals who participate is large and constitute the population of the Elder cleansers and those who aid and abet them. As I pointed out previously there are three types of currency used in the operation: 1) US cash; 2) nursing home (or hospice) beds, and 3) opportunities. The reason for this situation is the cancer needs prospectors to blaze the trail into the growing health care industry, perpetuate the victim base, and to keep the paper trail clean.
As an example. In the Alice Gore situation a 1.5 million dollar treasure trove was brought into the system. The lawyer who recruited the victim had to be compensated, thus, using political clout the lawyer was appointed to the position of guardian ad litem. This accomplished two purposes. 1) it kept the treasure trove under control until it could find its way into the treasury of the “Don” and 2) it provided a means to reward other deserving persons. The avarice of some of the ‘workers’ resulted in prospecting for gold in the teeth of Ms. Gore. Usually the situation is well managed and the victim reaches his/her final reward with Court orders approving every miscreant act including the accountings that disclose the theft of assets.
Just as the Enron miscreants did not go public with their participations the Elder Cleansers are quiet. However, if you examine the individual cases the participants are not hard to pull out of crowd. In the Sykes case the Judge’s evidence deposition suggests she is culpable. The failure of the two guardian ad litem to disclose the massive increase in the pecuniary status of the plenary guardian suggests culpability. Mr. Jerome Larkin’s strong actions in aiding and abetting the elder cleansing suggests his involvement. The list goes on! How deep does this cancer go will be ascertained only when an Honest complete and comprehensive investigation is completed. Yes, some of what appears to be criminal might just be incompetence – I certainly hope it is, but when it swims like a duck, has feathers like a duck etc. it is rare that it will turn out to be a horse. [One of the guardian ad litem is reported to have nursing home investments in a nursing home that Mary was temporarily placed]
The one sure fact is that what appears to be happening in these elder cleansing situations is that the miscreants are creating an 21 st century holocaust and augmenting the health care costs so as to prevent any goal of health care for all being accomplished. Of course their co-conspirators (such as the Attorney Registration and Distortion Commission) are assaulting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in the Taliban assaults on the core values of America.
Ken Ditkowsky
http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/

Dear Readers.

Just to let you know, I save and ponder and put on my wall many of the letters I get from the states attorneys, the ARDC and JIB who dismiss valid complaints of troubles and issues in the Cook County Court system out of hand.  As if you can smack and squish an annoying bug and it will go away.

So today, I was looking at Mr. Zimmerman’s letter.  Mr. Zimmerman is “special counsel” to the ARDC to make sure they are not corrupt.  Hmm.

I have before this posted his letter.

But today I was thinking, as he denies that Ms. Opryszek did not change the transcript of a certain Ms. Justine, tho she blogs and swears up and down she was lied to and then her transcript changed, WHERE IS THE AUDIO?

And in my trial, myself and Alyece Russell heard certain statements made by Judge Stuart that did not show up in the transcript, so WHERE IS THE AUDIO TO THAT?

You, dear readers, are taxpayers and citizens of a free and democratic society. These attorneys and judges take an oath to swear to uphold the Illinois and US Constitutions. Their duties in this regard to the public is one of a fiduciary standard, or the highest level of care and disclosure.

Where then is Atty. Zimmerman on all of this, and why didn’t he conduct the investigation that these circumstances demand?

All good questions.

JoAnne

From: JoAnne M Denison <jdenison@surfree.com>
Sent: Jul 11, 2014 7:29 PM
To: Atty Tom Zimmerman special counsel to SCOI <tom@attorneyzim.com>, Atty Ken Ditkowsky <ken@ditkowskylawoffice.com>, Bev Cooper Probate Sharks <bev.cooperscorner@yahoo.com>, Lucius Verenus Probate Sharks <verenusl@gmail.com>, “Justine McGinty (from Hunter Thinks.com” <j.mcginty93@ymail.com>, Atty Hunter ARDC complaint <hunter@hunterthinks.com>
Subject: Follow up Questions regarding transcript changes at the ARDC

From: Bev Cooper
Sent: Jul 11, 2014 7:33 AM
To: “JoAnne@justice4every1.com” , “verenusl@gmail.com”
Subject: Mr. Lanre Amu, Attorney

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Jul 10, 2014 2:33 PM
To: “J. Ditkowsky” , Nasga Us , Tim NASGA , Probate Sharks , “JoAnne M. Denison” , Harry Heckert , Deborah Ditkowsky , “Dr. Ditkowsky PHD” , Ben & Madi Ditkowsky , BILL DITKOWSKY , Naomi Chambers
Subject: The court house

The World we do not see

When the Daley Center f/k/a the Civic Center was being build many of us watched the progress of the rusty old structure that was being built adjacent to the County Building. We wondered if the pile of beams going up with a great deal of noise and dust would stand the test of time, and speculated that considering the political corruption maybe ****.
On a hot Thursday in a Court room at the County Building in 1968 we were not speculating as to the noise of the girders and the riveters. We had an injunction law suit to adjudicate and as one of the lawyers I was called to the courtroom to present my client’s case. The courtroom was square in shape with the high ceiling, and at the North end there was an elevated desk that housed an elderly and dignified man wearing a robe. His name was John Lupe and he was a Circuit Court judge.
Adjacent on each side of the desk were two large tables and a bunch of chairs that had wheels attached to their bottoms. The balance of the room was occupied by uncomfortable wood benches. At each corner of the room was a very large noisy fan, turned full on so that it could make as much noise as possible and move air around the room.
A clerk called the assembly to order, and the Judge (the old man at the desk) invited each of the attorneys to remove his jacket. I started to strip, but noticed my opponent kept his jacket and tie in their proper place. With a groan I said something that I was certain neither the judge or my opponent could hear.
We then approached the bench, and the first witness was placed in the box. The court reporter sat as close to him as she dared as she had the job to provide an accurate transcript. The witness was questioned and he ran through his direct examination as if he expected someone to hear the words he was saying. I was certain that the Judge heard nothing and intended to rely upon the transcript to find out what if anything was taking place in his courtroom. However, I and my opponent huddled close to the witness to garner each pearl of wisdom he uttered.
For an hour the direct examination dragged on, with me complaining after every third question that the witness did not talk loud enough. The court reporter echoed my complaint and the proceedings droned on. Finally my opponent, Lester Foreman lost patience and screamed at his client: “SPEAK UP DAMN IT!” Judge Lupe smiled as I handed Lester a book and told him slam it down on a hard surface that might get the attention of the witness. When Lester cupped his hand over his ear indicating that he had no hear me, I laughed and took out a book a whacked it against the desk.
At the very instant, the entire structure being erected across the street collapsed with a loud noise! For a second there was dead silence and then the air filled with sirens, shouts and general bedlam! We all rushed to window and noted that where there had been four stories of metal pilings stacked together there was flat earth. Judge Lupe, looked at Foreman and myself and said, Ditkowsky I wish you would be a little less dramatic with trying to get the attention of the witness; however, my clerk will call you to inform you of our next meeting.
Today, that structure is the Daley Center and it houses the Circuit Court of Cook County. It is a movie star. The car crash scenes in the movie “Blues Brothers” immortalized the building forever as well as its cousin the Thompson Center. The only surprise is the fact that the building has not rusted away or fallen down of its accord. We thought for a while it was self destructing when windows kept falling out, but that problem has been solved and today it stands tall as a monument to *****.
There were no bricks used in building this structure and its walls are all glass. I guess they did not use bricks and mortar as the architects were aware of the proposed usage and the individuals who would earn their daily bread therein.
Ken Ditkowsky
http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/

Dear Readers;

Tonight a probate victim wrote me about how she will be on a major radio station this weekend and talking about Daley center corruption and how the ARDC covers up and whitewashes corruption–a situation of grave concern in Illinois.

I told her she has my complete support and undivided attention.

But I wonder how many other attorneys and court room victims will call or write me so that we can instill truth, justice and integrity into Washington and Dearborn Avenues?

Let me know if any of you are interested and I will be glad to get you the call in number and information.

It is important that we speak out where we see a lack of justice and truth in our courtrooms.

Please contact me if interested. Bev Cooper is always looking for court room victims and lawyers to come on her show and speak the truth, talk about the need for justice at Washinton, Dearborn and Randolph in Chicago.

JoAnne

This is in response to someone writing our group to do grant writing for us so we can expand:

Dear Mr. X.

glad to have you aboard.

From very limited inquiry, the first step in grant writing is to define exactly what the organization is going to do.

After we know what we are about, application has to be made to an entity that might be interested in funding such an endeavor.

so far from my observation post we have talked in very general terms, talked about grant applications and have been very vague as to whom we are making application.

My conception of the entity Justice for All is as follows:

1) it would be a clearing house for the victims of elder cleansing and their families – i.e. it would provide referrals for the needed services and alert law enforcement to serious violations of the law so that they could conduct honest intelligent complete and comprehensive investigations of the miscreants. The entity would also weed out the people whose complaints had little merit.
2) it would maintain a staff of social workers, attorneys and support staff dedicated to the sole purpose of providing legal aid to the aforesaid victims and support in the effort to address the serious civil rights violations of law promulgated by the guardianship abuse, avarice of political and judicial officials, and other causes.
3) it would provide court watchers who would appear at court hearings and report abuses.
4) it would assist law enforcement in all relevant manners.

I do not have a clue who would fund such a venture. As a charity or foundation serious safeguards would have to be installed so that a miscreant group could not take over the venture and use it to an adverse advantage. The object here is to make it inconvenient for the Court, its appointees, law enforcement, et al to not do the job that the State pays them to do. The object is to force strict compliance with the State statutes that apply to guardianship and prevent the probate court from being a cash cow for every scavenger attorney around.

Ken Ditkowsky
http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/

All great ideas if someone knows of a foundation or grant provider for this venture, please contact me.

JoAnne

http://www.corpcounsel-digital.com/corpcounsel/sample/?pg=16#pg16

According to this article, entitled “sour homecomig”, Mr. Givens, a former general counsel and chief of staff Edwin Givens for SC State University apparently was engage in a phone conversation where other school officials discussed the details of some matter pertaining to taking bribes from other companies for homecoming 2011 activies.

While Mr. Givens did not take any money, and was not part of the bribes, he was nonetheless part of a phone conversation or conversations where bribes were discussed and planned, he did not report the felonious activities, and when the players were indicted for their bribing activities, the feds decided that not reporting these felonious activities was a crime in and of itself.

Givens received only $500, which he donated to a charity.  His excuse (which did not serve him much at all), he didn’t take a dime of a bribe for his own personal accounts.

In all, it is reported that 8 employees were fired over taking bribes, and it seems many were at a high level (general counsel, an university board chairman, and other university leaders). It is said that not only did Mr. Given fail to report these authorities, but he took steps to cover them up (i.e., he denied the activities).

Ken and I have heard of a ratness of felonious activities in probate. We report to the authorities, with numerous communications to the FBI, states attorneys, the ARDC, JIB, you name it, and we find 18 USC sec. 4 all over the place.

And all Mr. Givens had to do to avoid all of this is, once he got off the phone, all he had to do is send one simple email to “askdoj@doj.gov” and enlighten them as to the contents of the phone call.  Yep, one two or three sentence email could have saved his butt, his career and his sanity.

The article admits that use of “misprison of felony” is rare, and where many states had state laws, they repealed them, but 18 USC sec 4 is very much alive and now some fed prosecutors are actively using this law to combat corruption.

The only activity cited in this article was one phone call Mr. Givens was party to. Many attorneys in probate have been a party to conversations relating strings of felonies committed against the disableds and their families and also worked to cover up the crimes. The ARDC and JIB were often informed, and they have not publicly affirmed they report to the FBI– and I doubt that the DOJ will excuse any of those attorneys on the basis they received nothing personally of value either.

I looked up “misprison of felony” on Fastcase and found 12 instances of misprison of felony being mention in connection with it’s use or convictions.

I don’t think that 12 times in the Fed. App. database is rare enough to make those that fit the crime right here, right now in Illinois to feel very safe.

However, Ken and my continued emails, faxes and letters to askdoj will serve us well when it becomes acknowledged that crimes have occurred, that many knew and only Ken and I reported.

While Misprison of Felony might be rare today to mention, perhaps with the public’s disgust for rampant corruption, a spate of complaints using this federal law may soon be in order.

JoAnne

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Jul 4, 2014 12:20 PM
To: “JoAnne M. Denison” , Nancy Vallone , Probate Sharks , Nasga Us , Harry Heckert , Tim NASGA , Eric Holder , Matt Senator Kirk , “J. Ditkowsky” , Janet Phelan , GLORIA Jean SYKES , Chicago Tribune , SUNTIMES , Illinois ARDC , “Y. ACLU” , Ginny Johnson , Lawrence Hyman , Scott Evans , Kathie Bakken , FBI- , Diane Nash , Bev Cooper , Cook Sheriff , Martha Jantho , “Mr. Lanre Amu — Honest Atty Unfairly Persecuted By ARDC” , “illinoislawyernow@isba.org” , Fox2newsdesk , Chicagotonight , Martin Kozak , Truthbetoldradio , Edward Carter
Subject: Re: Inside Look: Center for Civil and Human Rights

The Civil Rights movement brought America into the 21st Century and drove the racists underground. The racists still exist – just take a look at the Illinois attorney registration and distortion commission’s prosecution of Attorney Amu. I do not know how the Supreme Court of Illinois could have read the documents in that abortive proceeding with a straight face. Bull Connors much has been the chairman of the hearing panel and the son of Adolph Hitler the chairman of the review commission. The 2nd oldest profession was not covered with glory by Mr. larkin’s cronies!

As this racist exercise was conducted in broad daylight I wonder if the Center for Civil and Human rights (and the American Civil Liberties Union) take their mandate seriously. In a State in which a score of Judges have been removed from the bench for corruption how can an attorney lose his license for exercising his First Amendment Rights??????

Of course the fact that law enforcement and our political leaders are amazingly silence as hundreds of senior citizens are being guardianized for the pecuniary benefit of some of the more nefarious members of our society and this effort is aided and abetted with State funds our political elite (and judicial officials) are making mockery of the Bill of Rights! Where is the Center for Civil and Human Rights? Where is the Aclu? Where is the justice Department? Where is law enforcement? Where is the legal profession?

They are all marching to celebrate July 4th as our liberties are marching to the tune of jack boots and the cries of the elderly and disabled for their personal human and civil rights. The hypocrisy is madding! How does a person (and I use the word advisedly) such as Jerome Larkin = who ignores the cries for help from the families of the elderly and disabled – look in the mirror much less march under the stars and stripes. How does Senator Durbin have the temerity to take about ‘freedom’ when he was asked to help in the fight against elder cleansings and all he would do was to send us a copy of a speech he gave no social security. How *****.

America has always stood up and been counted when human rights were violated – today, lip service is all we are getting. Maybe on this birthday of America we can return to basic values and physically stand up against the miscreants who would deprive us of our liberty and human rights. What good is social security if it goes to benefit an illegal guardian and not me?????
Ken Ditkowsky
http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/

Where to go to complaint when Cook County officials are doing X but the law is Y:

https://apps.cookcountyil.gov/oiig/index.php

My complaint, filed today:

I have gone to the Sheriff’s department now on several occasions and asked to have an attorney ID made.  I am an Illinois attorney in “good standing.”    They told me I am on “a list” and will not give me an ID.  I have asked when I can get one.  They said they do not know.  I asked the reason why I cannot get an attorney ID, they said they do not know.
They claim that photo ID’s are completely discretionary and they do not have to give me one simply if I am on “a list”.
I have not been involved in any incidents at the Daley center, nor I am the subject of any incident report.
What I have done is repeatedly reminded deputies that court room observers can take notes with pen and paper, laptops or whatever they want.  Court room observers also can, now that Illinois v. Clarke has been handed down by the Ill. Supreme Ct, record any proceedings.  The deputies do not like this.  In federal court, anyone is free to take notes as they please, even with laptops and cell phones.  No one is barred from recording.
In light of the fact that I, as an attorney, have been told repeatedly that certain transcripts were not available to be prepared by the Official Recorders Offices, when in fact they were rendered many months later, and certain transcripts have been altered to the favor of certain attorneys, I believe the public has a right 1) to be warned of this and 2) to take notes anyway they please.  further, many people cannot afford the $4 per page charge.
I should not be denied a attorney ID based upon the fact I am outspoken about deputies doing X when the law is in fact Y per the US and Illinois supreme court.
In doing so, I am preventing lawsuits.  In doing so, I am preserving important and fundamental human rights.and should not be tolerated by law abiding citizens who support our Illinois and US constitutions and basic human and civil rights.
If the Cook County government takes an action, it must do so in an uniform, non discriminatory way.
As a woman, I am in a suspect class.  Thank you.

 

I will let everyone know how this turns out, but at least you know now, that if you have a complaint about the deputies not following the law–including note taking, human rights and civil rights, this is the place to complain.  You can also email the cook county state’s attorneys directly.  I did that for the Sykes case and at first they said, “go ahead and email us, we’re interested,” and then they said, please stop, we don’t do that, you should contact the Cook County state’s attorney directly.  I did that and after awhile they said stop, you have to contact the Cook County office of inspector general.

And that’s what they do.  They point fingers at one another, and refuse to act.

Tom Zimmerman, is supposed to be special counsel to SCOI for the purposes of investigating miscreant behavior at the ARDC–witness tampering (Gloria Sykes) and spoliation of evidence (changing of transcripts–Judge Stuart testimony).  So I emailed him, I also emailed him the following about serious lack of compliance to existing well founded laws:

We must never forget Alice Gore, Rose Drabik, Lydia Tyler, NB, Carol Wyman–all passed over, and were either murdered or there was  attempted murder and all under Illinois “guardianships”.  Alice Gore’s 29 gold teeth were pulled  in an Illinois nursing home when she was age 99.  Gloria, a younger daughter was handcuffed and threatened with the euthanization of her pets on the 18th floor if she did not detail her accounts for probate attorneys fees, the GAL’s said the money was to “care for Mary”, but it is not.  90%+ of that estate will go for attorneys fees, some $350k.  JT was falsely accused of stealing by a GAL so she would fork over $20k to the estate which went for attorneys fees to avoid disparagement of her good name.  Bob Schwartz had $200k in imaginary promissory notes that estate is trying to collect–which will all go, (you guessed it) for attorneys fees.  In the Estate of Spera, the GAL grabbed all the joint accounts, locked DS out of all of them–$150k and he was rendered homeless for  6 month. Mother and son want to go home and live together.  That is Illinois law.  But the GAL and probate atty forbid it.  LV has no jurisdiction and her $350k estate went hugely to probate and atty fees.  She was rendered incompetent when she told probate goons to get off her porch, she wanted nothing to do with the OPG or a guardianship because they were all thieves, and she was immediately deemed delusional and schizophrenic.  Papers were served Friday and she was guardianized next Monday, put in a locked down facility, she escaped, couch surfed for 18 months, but that did not stop the probate goons from billing her estate $20k. She called and begged the OPG for money and food and no one would respond or they told her to go live in the designated nursing home where they put her. Mrs. L is still in dire straits, out of her home, massive atty fee billings ($200k in 20 months).  Mrs. P has suffered the same fate.  Now I have  anew case and a new high level of billings, (low level of ethics), Mr. F with an amazing $2.2 million in probate crony fees in 2 years.
All Illinois probate system.  Most from the 18th floor of the Daley center.
These people have NOT seen justice.  No one, not Jenner and Block, not Winston and Strawn, Jones Day,  no major with money and power, no major attorneys with money and power have come to my blog (despite 55k views) and said “how can I help?”
I am one woman.  I cannot clean up this mess alone. Ken is the only one helping me but he is suspended for 4 years. It will take a team of attorneys working 18 hrs per day to clean up this mess of injustice propagated on the elderly and disabled. Who does these things?
Where are the big “pro bono” law firms with money and power to help me out?
Are they afraid of Jerome Larkin and the ARDC too?  I am not.  What will be, will be and I will always stand to the challenge, no matter what.

 

Never Again

On December 7, 1941 a foreign power attacked America. Americans awoke on that Sunday morning frightened and confused. How could this happen? Two large oceans separated us from them and we were the good guys! Our ancestors rushed to defend the motherland and by the hundreds of thousands gave up their lives and went to War. No family was exempt, and everyone’s life was disrupted.

In the years that followed we have grown fat and lax. Foreign wars are video games in which people who were do not know are victimized. Here in America are leaders are chosen not for their intelligence, competency, or even ability – most are picked by us because they look and/or sound good on the boob tube. It is more important to most of us that our leaders wear well fitted suits and have deep voices than established records of accomplishment. Thus, we face a situation in which two governors of the State of Illinois were in jail at the same time, dozens of our elected officials have legal trouble, and we have zero confidence in our Courts. So serious is our plight that an elderly widow is seized, removed from her home and separated from her liberty, her property, and her life. The Courts refuse to intervene, except to protect the miscreants and law enforcement appears to be engaged in the game of ‘too little, too late.’

Yes, I am once again referring to the Mary Sykes case. Unfortunately, Mary Sykes is not alone, but every day we learn of more and more examples of elder cleansing culminating with the death of the victim. The Alice Gore case is a prime example, wherein the bold clout heavy miscreants demonstrated avarice so obscene that they even salvaged the gold filings in the victims teeth.

I’ve forwarded to the Attorney General of the United States dozens of letters from ordinary citizens who have family members being subjected to this assault on the core values of America. So far the score is good guys zero, elder abuses infinity! Indeed, the ‘motherland’ has opted to side with the elder abusers and I and every other lawyer complaining has been or is slated for discipline.

On July 4, 2014 take stock of our America. In my view we still have the best product and a Nation of laws, but, we have been invaded by a cancer that threatens to destroy us. Yes, some of the infection comes labelled as being part of the current political parties and some of the political elite; but, too much of the problem is our willingness to be fat and lax. One symptom is demonstrated by my e-mail. I could organize a group of like minded persons and take some positive action – we could gather on LaSalle Street armed with a rail and tar; however, we are cowed by authority and thus the miscreants are safe.

My grandfather who immigrated to the United States at the age of 9, who made his mark homesteading in North Dakota, running cattle in Texas, etc was faced with a very angry and very large individual who objected to the antics of my grandfather’s Jewish grandson. Mr. ***** made no apology for his National Socialist leanings – in fact he expressed them quite eloquently Grandfather stood standing on his toes five feet five inches tall. When threatened by the hulking Nazi, the diminutive Texan used his fists and piece by piece reduced the Nazi to a respectable size. Neighbors poured out of their homes to watch the resolution of the dispute. Some of the Sauganash residents demonstrated how Americans react to bullys. Mr. Kueen, who had been an Arizona Ranger as a youth, strapped on his six gun, rushed from his home (across the street) and barked demands for the miscreant Nazi to cease and desist.
The direct action resolved the problem. The Nazi had no trouble selling his house (there was a housing shortage) and was gone by the next week-end.

Today we cannot settle disputes with fists. The confidence in the Courts is at low level, and confidence in the Executive Branch of government is in negative figures. Thus, what can be do? I do not know, but, I do know that we as citizens have to do something. I’ve taken to writing to the Justice Department and public officials, filing a civil rights law suit, demanding from law enforcement an HONEST complete and comprehensive investigation, and being a pain in the area of the human body where the sun does not shine. I’ve sent out a letter every single day and have demanded that the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission stop being a deception commission and do its job.

I do know that this American is not going to be walk voluntarily into a ‘gas chamber,’ a nursing home, or a guardianship. This Jew is not going to walk voluntarily into a gas chamber a nursing home or guardianship. This coolie is not going to walk voluntarily into a gas chamber, a nursing home or guardianship. This peon is not going to walk voluntarily into a gas chamber, a nursing home or guardianship. I have a bucket of tar in my garage! My friend has a large rail! **** All I have asked for from day one is an HONEST intelligent, complete and comprehensive investigation.
Ken Ditkowsky
http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/

this is from Michael Gearhart.

Apparently they gave him back his Cook County ID, but I do not have mine back. I will ask again on Monday. If you demand that the Cook County Sheriff and the court system do their jobs (ie, support and uphold the US Constitution), they take away your attorney ID.

I personally don’t care. I think they should COME TO ME and award it back. I don’t mind standing in line and talking to the deputies about how I’m an attorney, they took away my ID wrongfully, will not provide me with a reason, and I have done nothing wrong. The deputies are now friendly to me. They know I have scissors for cutting out pictures for evidence, they know I have little $2 Walmart staplers for the paper exhibits we (still, sigh) have to have (federal court it is all on a computer screen).

Next, when they get to court, Judge Aicha MacCarthy tells me she is afraid of “recording” so I cannot use my computer which has all my questions and case strategy and case info on. No matter, I call on angels. They help me when humans do not do what is right. But still, I argue the ADA because I am older and have arthritis in my hands and it is easier and more efficient to take notes on my laptop. She says, “bring an assistant.” I tell her “I have no assistants”. She says, “too bad for you.”

So I ask you all, and I will report back to her, is there anyone out there willing to volunteer their time to come to court to take short hand for me and type it up in the hall so I can use it when I have to question witnesses. IF so, then I will let her know.

The better question is, why are the circuit court judges so afraid of recording? I see no harm it it. First of all, it is accurate. I have seen and experience many, many, changed transcripts. Do I have to list them all. Nope, that would be typing for a day. Next, my rule is, if you think you will be shamed by saying it, then DON’T SAY IT.

I don’t understand her “fear of recording”. Do you? Is there a psychological category for that like the phobias we well know. And if there is a fear of “being recorded”, isn’t that a subject for therapy and not a subject for the open and democratic courtrooms we were all promised since 6th grade when we had to take our civics test to graduate grammar school? Maybe my problem was I got 100% on mine. Silly me. And I swear I didn’t even study for it. I thought everyone knew these rights were inimical to every human being on the planet.

Today, I met an elderly client. He said he was an union electrician for decades. It was soooo bad in Chicago, he actually sat at lunches in diners with his boss (owner of a major union electric company in Chicago) and Boss would be asked from the city inspectors “Hey, Mr. Boss, my bill (electric, water, gas, mortgage–you name it) is overdue. You gotta pay it.” He would respond, “still waiting on you to approve project X, you got the VIG, move it along.” Business as usu. in Chicago.

I rest my case. The ARDC says that this blog is officially “misconduct”. I say it is First Amendment.

Apparently some 20,000+ attorneys in Chicago do not speak out like myself, Ken Ditkowsky (suspended for 4 years, may as well make it 1000) for ratting on corruption.

How long must it be until we can overcome?

Do we really need this “code of silence” that the ARDC whitewashes?

JoAnne

From Michael Gearhart (my hero)

From: Michael Gerhardt (GGH LAW) [mailto:mgerhardt@gghlaw.net]
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 12:12 PM
To: ‘info@bettergov.org’
Subject: Misuse of Cook County Employees by judges

Please stick with the logic to see the waste of County dollars.

I have been part of a very active group looking for judicial accountability. Part of our complaints have been that court-watchers were abused (threats of jail if taking notes, confiscation of notes, removal from courtroom for taking notes, etc.) by judges and courtroom personnel. This was recently resolved by the Chicago Tribune. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-cook-county-judge-notes-edit-0609-20140609,0,4718153.story. Chief Judge Tim Evans was forced to put in place a policy allowing people to take notes in court (A public proceeding, involving public employees, conducting public business, in a public place). We have asked for the public to be allowed to electronically record in the courtroom. Despite the recent Illinois Supreme Court ruling striking down the Eavesdropping Statute as unconstitutional in People v. Clark, where litigant recorded the Family Court court proceedings to memorialize it (side note: most complaints regarding judicial corruption come out of Cook and Kane County where recording of court proceedings is not the norm. People v. Clark is Kane County), Chief Judge Evans refuses to reconcile his recent policy banning electronic recording devices with the ruling in People v. Clark.

We have pushed for court reporters if there is going to be no electronic recording. When we do see these Official Court Reporters (Cook County employees), we ask for their contact information so that we may purchase court transcripts in the controversial cases. (Money: We are offering to buy – give money to the County.) We are finding that the judges are telling the court reporters to go “off the record.” (In other words, asking Cook County employees to not do their job. In these courtrooms, we have noted that these particular judges appear to have the court reporter “off the record” the entire time the court reporter is in the courtroom. (Money: Waste of taxpayer dollars – employees told not to do what they are paid by taxpayer dollars to do). And we have even had a few instances where, although the judge did not ask the court reporter to go “off the record” and the court reporter is still typing, when we attempt to purchase the transcript, we are told that the judge has told the court reporter to remove the record (Money: not only destroy government property, but ensure that government property that someone wants to purchase is destroyed.)

But wait, there is more. In a recent confinement of a very active advocate, the judge ordered the advocate confined for indirect Civil Contempt in the advocate’s personal case. As the procedure, the advocate was detained to the basement of Daley Center. Normally, the detainee would be left there to bond out, or wait until 3:30 PM or later for transport to jail at 26th & California. However, the judge decided that her hatred of the advocate was enough for her to use Cook County assets for her personal vendetta against the advocate (I hate editorializing, but it is a personal vendetta.) The judge called and demanded that “special transport” be arranged to have the advocate removed from Daley Center immediately before the Advocate’s attorney could speak with the advocate and before any bond could be posted. A car and two officers were dispatched from another courthouse to act as “special transport.” (Money: using Cook County assets –two officers and a car – for personal vendetta.) Advocate’s attorney was told that this was normal practice. You will see that this is highly unusual. Advocate was taken to 26th and California. Normal pick-up of prisoners from the courthouses is in the afternoon (more efficient at the end of the day instead of multiple transportation trips and to consolidate trips if picking up from multiple locations). Hence, prisoner “intake” at 26th and California does not open before noon. Advocate arrived at intake at approximately 10:30 AM. Not surprisingly, there was no one present to process the advocate. So the advocate, two officers, and a car (Money: two officers and a car are not at their assigned post and are unavailable for at their assigned post/duties; possibly, other County Assets are being used to cover this (now) unavailability of County resources for their assigned purposes.) have to wait until intake personnel arrive to process the advocate. Advocate was turned over to intake personnel approximately at noon at which time the two officers and car were released to return to their assigned duties. (It appears that intake processing did not even start until around 2:00 PM.) Advocate’s processing was not complete until after 1:00 AM (not a typo) and therefore Advocate’s attorney could speak with advocate when the attorney went to 26th and California.

So we have Cook County taxpayer dollars wasted in multiple ways:

-Court reporters told not to do their job.

-Court transcripts (public records) not available for purchase.

-Court transcripts (public records and County assets) possibly ordered destroyed.

-Car and officers removed from their assigned duties for personal vendetta. (Possible reassignment of County assets to cover for personal vendetta.)

-Car and officer removed from their assigned duty to act as babysitter while waiting for intake was open.

All this taxpayer dollar wasted to avoid a little accountability in the judicial branch.

Mick

Michael D. Gerhardt

Law Offices of

Gerhardt & Haskins LLP

730 West Randolph Street

Chicago, Illinois 60661

312-334-9021

NEW FAX: 312-284-4815

And now, you can look at Michael’s Gearhart’s great activist works at:

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwNXEyekFQWENGZHM&usp=sharing

he already has his FOIA requests up there. enjoy.

If “crook county” was recently published as 4th in corruption in the nation, this blog is 1st in activism to stop it all thru peaceful, activist protest.  And if the ARDC wants me to shut up, be a good little wife, barefoot and pregnant, I will not do so, I will PROTEST and be an outspoken ACTIVIST.  Our freedom of speech and open democracy depends upon this.  I might have been pregnant 4 times and breast fed my kids 1 to 2 years, but I WILL NOT SHUT UP AND GO AWAY.  Neither will Ken. We are here and we are eloquent.  Ken’s Writ of Cert to the US Supreme Court is a masterpiece the founding fathers and mothers would be proud of.  What did they die for?  Was it nuthin?  I don’t agree with that.

Dear Readers;

In the ISBA email newsletter today, there was an interesting story on Blago, now put away 5 years in club fed med for allegedly engaging in corruption by exchanging campaign contributions for a senate seat OR suggesting that perhaps he would just nominate himself.

The FBI took a highly strange and rare path to bug Blago at his home and office and monitor his phone calls based upon some pretty weak allegations (I forget what those were) and while the Fed. Ct. Judge who issued the politician bugging permission warrant was reluctant, he did it anyway. (Please vote this guy ready for the NSA rubber stamp court allowing the taking of billions of bits of innocent US citizen emails, texts and even phone conversations–he’s ready for his own rubber stamp.)

Unlike most of the country and the press (who definitely can be wrong from time to time) and public opinion, which is as variable as the Illinois prairie grass in the wind, I was not very certain that trading campaign contribs for votes or seats or whatever was in fact “corruption”, because my hunch was 1) it is done all the time; 2) it likely falls under free speech and the corporations are persons under the First Amendment theory we currently operate on; 3) it is fairly the basis of politics–to gather the most campaign contribs you can while doing as little as possible.

Okay, maybe I’m overly cynical. However, unlike the rest of the country at the time, and in particular Illinois, I did in fact look up the law. I found almost no cases on a politician being convicted of corruption (the “honest services” acts in the US and various states or the Hobbs Act) in terms of support my campaign and I promise to vote the way you want, take action the way you want.

That’s right almost no cases. I did find about 7 at the US court of appeals circuit court level (and I forget the cites), but in EVERY case the court affirmed what I said above: 1) all politicians do it; 2) there is no obligation on the part of a politican to take large campaign contribs and the vote the way you want, disburse state money on the schedule you want, do or not do X, Y or Z. Yep, the federal circuits basically said a politician can lie about all of that — in exhchange for money put in a campaign fund, and if you don’t get the vote you want from him, you’re just screwed.

So the above article points this out at the Dec. 2013 oral argument before the 7th circuit who was very cynical about all of this.

I was too.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/07/will-rod-be-spared-108478.html#.U7VoC7E_v0N

What I don’t understand is that the public was ready to convict, many others were ready to convict, even lawyers, but I could not find anyone interested in looking at the case law.

Many, including myself, have complained bitterly that the 18th floor consistently does X when the law is Y. Is this perhaps endemic in society, and even with lawyers?

JoAnne