From Ken Ditkowsky — We face real problems here in America

To:     American Civil Liberties Union
Subject:     Assaults on the First Amendment – When Lawyers are threatened with loss of license for speaking out as to Judicial corruption.
Date:   December 13, 2014
From :    Ken Ditkowsky
I tossed out your survey as it is irrelevant.   
We face real problems here in America.     We face the collapse of our judicial system and the destruction of our core values.    Ordinary citizens who have never broken a law, never engaged in a terror act,  never assaulted a store clerk, never belonged to a gang, and who just want to be left alone by government are being herded into guardianships by corrupt public officials and judicial officials.    They are then stripped of their prior lives, their liberty and property.     Calls for help are ignored = especially by the ACLU, and ultimately when there is no more pecuniary gain the guardianships end by the victims enjoying involuntary assisted suicide [1].    
The most egregious assaults on the First Amendment emanate from the Courthouse itself.    Therein, men and women who have sworn to uphold the Constitution place their law licenses on the line and subject themselves to loss of their right to practice law for speaking out against judicial corruption.      I am not speaking of proceedings wherein a litigant or a lawyer acts in a disrespectful manner, but, wherein ethically challenged judicial officials have created cottage industries such as ‘elder cleansing.’     (Elder cleansing is the railroading of a senior citizen into an abusive guardianship, isolated from his/her prior life, and systematically separated from his/her liberty and property.)
Incidents of elder abuse and elder cleansing abound and have been reported by the Government Accounting Office to Congress only to receive bureaucratic benign neglect.         Citizens by the score have reported incidents of jurists (and lawyers) totally ignoring the Constitutional protections that form the core values of America and isolating targeted seniors from their life savings and the life that they enjoyed prior to coming into contact with the judicial system.     These citizens (and disabled people) become non-entities except for the purpose of enhancing the pecuniary aspirations of corrupt miscreants.
The Mary Sykes case pending in Cook County Illinois is a poster board example (09 P 4585) of the problem.     Therein Mary, a 90 year old senior who did her own banking, had an audience with President Clinton, was active in her church and garden club and almost totally independent was herded into a questionable guardianship by lawyers and a judge who totally ignored every safeguard that Illinois and Federal Statutes provided.      Litigation commences with the service of summons.   The service is reported to the Court by the Sheriff filing a document called a ‘return.’    When I inquired of the Sheriff as to whether he filed a return, the Sheriff could find no evidence of a return of prior summons ever being prepared, and none appeared in the Court file.     As an incompetent might not understand a summons, Illinois requires 14 days prior notifications to close relatives (jurisdictional) to be given.     This was never done, and it appears that there was no hearing on incompetence.   That step was skipped and the Court went on to determine a ‘care plan!’   The elder cleansing case considered Jurisdiction a technicality and thus is ignored.  
The Court record in Sykes is replete with actions by the presiding jurist that are highly questionable.    Mary’s isolation is a glaring example.   The judge appears to have made no inquiry as to jurisdiction.    Her concern was not in ascertaining the extent of any incompetency or disability that Mary might have, but to get the paper work in the file.      In August 2009 Mary’s treating physician refused to certify that she was incompetent.     The Judge counseled the movant that she should obtain another doctor (doctor shopping).   Both guardian ad litem and the Court was aware that Mary had been literally herded off the street and totally isolated from her two elderly siblings, her younger daughter and life friends–for the past 5 years.    She was removed from Cook County to DuPage County.    The case record is clear that Mary was denied an attorney and a concerted effort was made to silence any objections being made concerning the felonies that Mary was enduring including a transfer of wealth.   Mary’s substantial estate including about a million dollars in collectible gold coins has been dissipated.   Most without the transfers appearing in the inventory.
Mary was not alone in this outrage!    Alice Gore was herded into a guardianship, separated from her family and her 1.5 million dollar estate reduced to zero.   The exhibited avarice included harvesting the gold filings from her teeth.    I have been copying the law enforcement and whomever will listen with the reports that I receive on a daily basis of this elder cleansing.     
I and other lawyers joined in the chorus of complaints to legal authorities of breach of civil rights of Mary Sykes, Alice Gore **** and the other elder cleansing victims.     According to Court records, my first foray was to have the temerity to attempt to investigate the facts of the Mary Sykes case.    I wrote a letter to the guardians and to the treating physician making inquiry as to their view of the facts.    The response was immediate.    Guardian Stern called me on the telephone to inform me that the Court had ordered that no outsider could investigate the file and if I did do so I would be sanctioned by the Court.   A similar called followed initiated by the attorney for the guardian.    I refused to be intimidated and continued my investigation.
To my surprise Guardian Stern, Guardian Farenga and the plenary guardian all brought sanction motions against me.    To my further surprise the court rubber stamped their request to sanction me.     When the Court determined that the injury was $4500 and issued a final order.  I appealed.   The Appellate Court had to vacate the sanction as there was no jurisdiction and did so.     Having practiced Law for half a century I was not intimidated and continued to investigate and call for an Honest, intelligent, complete and comprehensive investigation by law enforcement.     Mr. Larkin and the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission apparently were offended by my call for an investigation by law enforcement of the felonies occurring open and notoriously in the Circuit Court of Cook County and they stepped in to attempt to stop my complaints and retaliate for my demanding an Honest intelligent complete and comprehensive investigation of the elder cleansing going on in Illinois [2].
Grant Goodman, an Arizona attorney, observed similar elder cleansing in Arizona, and filed suit.    The Arizona lawyer regulators tried to stop him in his tracks.    He was sanctioned by them.    JoAnne Denison published a blog wherein she made a website available to report the abuses and felonies that are common place in the Court houses across America.    Again Jerome Larkin stepped in with another of his ‘star chamber’ disciplinary complaints [3].      Larkin ignored the SCOTUS cases of United States v. Alvarez 132 S. Ct 2537, Brown v Entm’t 121 S. Ct 2729, Ashcroft vs ACLU 124 S. Ct 2783 Synder v Phelps 131 S. Ct 1207, Citizens United v FEC 130 S. Ct 876, McCutcheon v FEC 2014 WL 1301866.     He also ignored Peel vs ARDC of Illinois 496 US 91 wherein SCOTUS made it clear that even Illinois lawyers were entitled to the protection of First Amendment.
I understand that the Denison record before the IARDC can be accessed at . [4]    It and the file in In re: Sykes 09 P 4585 speak for themselves.
The bottom line is that when lawyers cannot speak out as to corruption in the Courts no citizen can be confident that the First Amendment has any meaning whatsoever .     Illinois in Operation Greylord enjoyed more than a score of our judges being sentenced to prison for criminal conduct and scores more having to resign, yet, right now in Illinois a lawyer who speaks out and complains (not in the courtroom, but in the public forum) that a particular elected judge is corrupt risks losing his license to practice law.   Attorney Lanre Amu complained to judicial authorities concerning several judges.    He received a three year suspension from Mr. Larkin and the Illinois Supreme Court. [5]
When the ACLU is interested in the War on the Elderly and the disabled and the rights of free speech of ordinary individuals who ask no more than being able to be left alone then ordinary people will contribute to the ACLU.          

[1] Just about every victim of elder cleansing has written to the ACLU and each has been told by your people to go pound sand.     Government is disinterested – almost 100% of the nursing home residents vote for the dominant political party – ergo – why bite the hand that feeds them.    This is especially true when corrupt judges routinely rubber stamp whatever is put before them.
[2] Without a scintilla of evidence of wrongdoing being demonstrated I was suspended for four years.    Had I participated in the theft of Mary Sykes assets a year suspension would have been provided.
[3] Larkin, knowing he has no evidence to sustain any of the outrageous charges that he makes, adjusts the proceedings so that he has almost total control over the proceedings.    For instance, the Sykes case file is strong evidence of misconduct not only by the Judge, but by the guardians.   Ergo, the subpoena for the file was quashed.     Even though Larkin is required to prove his claim by clear and convincing witness, fact witnesses are not tendered to the panel.    Key documents are not produced in discovery.    (In my case two very important letter written by Guardian Farenga were not produced)   The panel appears to have script.    It was most evident in the Amu case wherein the panel made factual findings without a single fact witness (other than Amu) being called to testify.   In my case, the panel’s lawyers have to ‘wing it’ and made a telling mistake.     Pursuant to 755 ILCS 5/11a – 10 close family members are required as a jurisdictional requirement to receive 14 days PRIOR notice of the incompetency hearing.    This was not done, and therefore even by Larkin’s rules he could not prevail.    This did not bother the panel.   They found that Mary’s two sister had knowledge of the incompetency hearing.    There was no testimony as to that fact and in fact there was no incompetency hearing.    But, even if Larkin could prove something happened that did not happen the criteria was not met.    The statute requires PRIOR notice.    The panel apparently could not claim that their clairvoyance was that efficacious.
[4] Attorney Denison’s situation is protected by 47 USCA 230 in addition to 320 ILCS 20/4 and various other State and Federal Laws including the Bill of Rights and the Illinois Constitution of 1970.
[5] Mr. Amu is a special case.    Amu is an immigrant from Africa who fortuitously has a dark hue to his skin.     He is guilty according to the Illinois Supreme Court and Mr. Larkin’s cadre of rubber stamp panels of practicing law while ‘black!’    Mr. Amu has filed a Petition for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court.    (A lawyer who has ‘white skin’ received a five month suspension for speaking out)

Jerome Larkin’s racism in the Amu case is intolerable.    How any attorney working for government can face himself/herself after being involved in these assaults against the Constitution is a real mystery.     I thought that the Nazi war crimes trials after WW 2 put to bed the concept of “just following orders!”     

Ken Ditkowsky

1 thought on “From Ken Ditkowsky — We face real problems here in America

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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