Another Dose of Justifiable Out Rage from Ken Ditkowsky after an ARDC Response to the case of Alice Gore

 
Another letter from Ms. Guzman at the ARDC in response to a complaint against Ms. Solo (aka Soloveichik)
 
 
Of course, this is the letter in which the Coopers detail the fact that $1.5 million was missing from Mother Alice Gore’s estate and further, 29 gold teeth were pulled from a 99 year old woman.  Does all of that faze the ARDC?  Of course not!
 
Favorite quote:
 
After carefully reviewing the information and documentation you submitted, we have
determined that many of your complaints are essentially disagreements regarding the legal
actions taken, advice given and decisions made by Ms. Vidal. The attorney for an Estate
maintains certain discretion in conducting the business of an estate, which would not generally
provide a basis for the discipline of the attorney.
 
From: Lucius Verenus <verenusl@gmail.com>
To: kenneth ditkowsky <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 1:03 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: ardc response Alice R. Gore 8-18-14 -COMPLAINT TO ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Ken,  another point of interest is the claim by Ms. Guzman and Ms. Hays that Ms. Hays is a “guardian” as mentioned in the court transcript.  Ms. Hays is an employee of the “American Bank” that handled the financial aspects of Alice’s estate.  She was never appointed by the court as a guardian.  While Alice was alive Kimberly Cooper (a disabled person) was her guardian and Kimberly’s guardian at that time may have been the Katten law firm. kc
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 12:50 PM, kenneth ditkowsky <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com> wrote:

Mr. and Mrs. Cooper,
 
Thank you for forwarding to me the latest response of Ms. Guzman and the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission.
 
I had occasion this past week to have discussions with Tim concerning the Americans With Disabilities Act.    I had previously read the act, but, I had not previously read the regulations promulgated by the Department of Justice.    Briefly the Act is Congress’ statement as to protecting the all disabled people including senior citizens such as Alice Gore.       The action seeks to prevent exactly what happened to Alice Gore, Mary Sykes, ********.       
 
Pursuant to 18 USCA 4 I am forwarding Ms. Guzman’s letter to the Justice Department.    The letter is another in a series of Cover-up and aiding and abetting communications designed not to do the job that was delegated to the ARDC – i.e. protecting the public and in particular disabled people.    As an example – Ask Mr. Larkin and Ms. Guzman how it accommodates a senior citizen to have her separated from her family, have her assets removed from her, and have her teeth mined for the gold content of her filings!
 
When Ms. Guzman suggests that the complaints made are disingenuous she and Mr. Larkin (who is her supervisor) are not only being disingenuous, but are aiding and abetting the felonies that you have reported!     I do not know where Mr. Larkin and Ms Guzman are coming from in making the statements that they made.   Both are fully aware that 755 ILCS 5/11a – 1 et seq.  is not a ‘ carte blanc‘ delegation of Mrs. Gore’s civil and human rights to whomever a corrupt judge wishes to reward.     Like ADA the guardianship act is designed to provided whatever limited assistance that Alice Gore reasonably needed and wanted.    
 
The stand to be determined was no “the best interests of the ward” as determine artificially by a avarice inspired political hack who was appointed by a Judge.    The standard is what the alleged then and there and there disabled person reasonably wanted as best could be determined.   (If the alleged disabled person is not disabled as to the particular subject matter the guardian has no jurisdiction or discretion – without a special court hearing complete with notice and hearing and a finding by the court based upon the notice hearing.  Asking Adam Stern or Miriam Solo what the disabled person desired is not compliance with the law – it is another lawless action that violates basic civil rights).
 
Getting back to the violations of federal law that Ms. Guzman and Mr. Larkin are engaged.   (see 18 USCA 371).    It is apparent that both Ms. Guzman and Larkin knew that Congress has decreed that citizens with disabilities are no second class citizens.    Both are aware that government and others must make reasonable accommodation for the disabled senior citizen and a instrumentality whose actual purpose as demonstrated in a bunch of reports to congress by governmental agencies is pernicious and abusive is not compliance – IT IS A CRIMINAL ACT.
 
THUS, I am forwarding the letter you received to the ADA administration and the Justice Department and I am advising you that you should do the same.   In your complaint you should report chapter and verse and forward copies of all the CYA and other disingenious communications that you reveived from Mr. Larkin, Ms. Guzman et al.       What we have in the attached letter is a serious violation of the law that Mr. Larkin and Ms. Guzman knows is such a violation.     
 
As I am lead to believe that both Ms. Guzman and Mr. Larkin are lawyers, pursuant to Himmel I have copied the IARDC.     It is their obligation to investigation both Ms Guzman and Mr. larkin and determine why they have violated the clear mandate of the ADA and its regulations and continue to aid and abet the violation of the liberty and the property rights of senior citizens.     (I expect that the IARDC will continue the cover-up – but at least the required Himmel Report will be made).    
 
For the record – my response is intended to be public and may be reproduced at your discretion and desire.   
 
 
 
Ken Ditkowsky

2 thoughts on “Another Dose of Justifiable Out Rage from Ken Ditkowsky after an ARDC Response to the case of Alice Gore

    • you’re right. but it gets even more interesting than that. the reality is, the public knows of the problem already from the blogs. It is well informed. Still, the ARDC protect a favored attorney by pretending that they did not understand the complaint filed and they make it clear in the letter they want no further correspondence on this issue.
      But the attys involved have 8 years of college minimum, they are highly skilled and very intelligent. Perhaps lazy, but intelligent.
      So you know the letter is just a very poor red herring that makes them look like satraps, and I say that with all due respect.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s