From Ken Ditkowsky — N Korea is closer than we think

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Jan 6, 2015 11:46 AM
To: “bstone12@hotmail.com” , RosANNa Miller , Mark Adams , Probate Sharks , Eric Holder , Matt Senator Kirk , “FBI- ( (” , “ComplaintAdmin ADA (CRT)” , Fiduciary Watch , Tim NASGA , Chicago Tribune , SUNTIMES , Janet Phelan , Nasga Us , “J. Ditkowsky” , Chicago FBI , “JoAnne M. Denison” , Candice Schwager , BILL DITKOWSKY , The Wall Street Journal , Bev Cooper , Diane Nash , Scott Evans , Doug Franks , ISBA Main Discussion Group , Cook County States Attorney , FOX News Network LLC
Cc: JoAnne M Denison , “kev_pizz@hotmail.com” , Robert Sarhan , Skender Hoti , Angela Woodhull , Antoinette Greywol , Lisa Meuche , Kathleen Dunn , Kathleen , Dr Sam Sugar , Glenda Martinez , “jmaddux@tampabay.rr.com” , Beverly Newman , Teresa Lyles , Theresa Pizzarello , Louise C Elmes , “frangrady.rn@gmail.com” , k_bakken , Alyece Russell , John Lobianco , Sherrin Smith , Alicia Rook , Carol Holden , Patty Reid , Elliot Bernstein , Ginny Johnson , “bonnie.reiter@yahoo.com”
Subject: Did we wake up this morning and discovery that we are in North Korea?

 Over the past several years the families of the victims of elder cleansings have been sending to the Attorney General of the United States, the Justice Department, the United States Attorneys as well as local law enforcement a sincere plea to Enforce the basic Constitutional Protections as connoted in the Bill of Rights, the Guardianship laws as written by the various State Legislatures and by the Congress of the United States in the Americans with Disabilities Act.   
 
Congress enacted a law that in words and phrases states:
Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.    18 USCS § 4
 
Elder Cleansing has four elements:    1) the placing of a senior citizen or disabled person into a guardianship; 2)   Isolation of the senior or disabled person from family and prior life; 3) restriction of senior or disabled person’s liberty and/or property; and 4) the subsequent threat to the life of the senior or disabled person.       
 
The guardianship relationship creates a fiduciary relationship between the disabled person and the person appointed as guardian and therefore, the theft (unauthorized control) of the person or property of the disabled person or senior citizen is a felony.      Thus, it is incumbent on every citizen to report the criminal activity of elder cleansing when it occurs.      18 USCA 3 points out the scope as to who should be reported and 18 USCA 1 (and 18 USCA 371) provides authority for the prosecution of those who act in concert:
a)   Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.
(b)   Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal.      18 USCS § 2
·          
—————
 
Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.
Except as otherwise expressly provided by any Act of Congress, an accessory after the fact shall be imprisoned not more than one-half the maximum term of imprisonment or (notwithstanding section 3571 [18 USCS § 3571]) fined not more than one-half the maximum fine prescribed for the punishment of the principal, or both; or if the principal is punishable by life imprisonment or death, the accessory shall be imprisoned not more than 15 years.    18 USCS § 3
 
Literally hundreds of citizens have written to law enforcement seeking as an intelligent, honest, complete and comprehensive investigation of this situation.    The result has been not only unsatisfactory, but in many cases outright retaliation and loss of valuable rights in retribution.      In Illinois using the guise of administrator of the Illinois attorney registration and disciplinary commission Jerome Larkin has made a laughing stock of the Illinois and the United States Constitutions (and particularly the First, Fifth and Fourteen Amendments.)     
 
The Mary Sykes case filed in Cook County, Illinois (09 P 4585) illustrates the scenario and the need for law enforcement to act vigorously and bring law and order back to Illinois [1] .     So obscene is the process that in the Gore case the Nazi practice of harvesting the gold filings from the teeth of victims was reinstated.     Dozens of cases have been reported to law enforcement and it does not appear that a single miscreant has been prosecuted for these felonies.      The rape of the Estates of the elderly and the disabled continues unabated. The Larkin response to these serious strings of felonies primarily consists of nonsensical letters such as “that attorney is now your guardian ad litem” or there’s nothing wrong with pulling a few gold teeth!
 
So arrogant are the Illinois miscreants that Jerome Larkin openly and notoriously attempts to intimidate the legal profession with disciplinary proceedings that are even less fair than the kangaroo gulags or North Korean criminal trials.    An ISIS mullah deciding the fate of Christian who looks like a Jew comes closer to due process.    Larkin and his crew of over-paid attorneys make it very clear that they are not concerned about the facts or the law, their mission is to intimidate the legal profession so that they do not comply with 18 USCA 4 and in particular the money flow to the cottage industry of elder cleansing [2] .
 
The cases that have been brought to the attention of law enforcement from just about every State in the Union all have a common tread – they have the elements of elder cleansing and in particular sport the appointment of “guardians for profit”  isolation, segregation of the victim from prior life and family, the control of life savings and assets of the victim,  unjust enrichment of the guardian for profit, and the absence of a reasonable accommodation or any illness or disability of the senior or disabled person. [3]
 
Few of the cases that are the subject of elder cleansing meet the ADA criterion of reasonable accommodation.    There can be no reasonable accommodation if the degree and extent and nature of the disability is not ascertained!     It is just common sense that no reasonable accommodation can be made in a vacuum.      Illinois as an example makes it clear that the need for a guardian be proven by clear and convincing evidence and that the guardianship is limited to a reasonable accommodation, to wit:
Sec. 11a-3.   Adjudication of disability; Power to appoint guardian. (a) Upon the filing of a petition by a reputable person or by the alleged disabled person himself or on its own motion, the court may adjudge a person to be a disabled person, but only if it has been demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that the person is a disabled person as defined in Section 11a-2 [755 ILCS 5/11a-2]. If the court adjudges a person to be a disabled person, the court may appoint (1) a guardian of his person, if it has been demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that because of his disability he lacks sufficient understanding or capacity to make or communicate responsible decisions concerning the care of his person, or (2) a guardian of his estate, if it has been demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that because of his disability he is unable to manage his estate or financial affairs, or (3) a guardian of his person and of his estate.
(b)   Guardianship shall be utilized only as is necessary to promote the well-being of the disabled person, to protect him from neglect, exploitation, or abuse, and to encourage development of his maximum self-reliance and independence. Guardianship shall be ordered only to the extent necessitated by the individual’s actual mental, physical and adaptive limitations .    755 ILCS 5/11a-3   
 
Using the Sykes case as an example who does the appointment of two guardian ad litem and a plenary guardian meet the criterion of the American with Disabilities Act – reasonable accommodation?       The transferee of the alleged disabled person’s wealth to ‘clouted favorite attorneys”   to the common citizen is not a reasonable accommodation.        The segregation of the disabled person from his/her family and the loss of liberty is not a reasonable accommodation.      It therefore follows that both State and Federal Law are openly and notorious violated.
 
The Laws of the United States of America have to have some meaning.      When Congress enacts a law public officials such as Jerome Larkin and the Courts of the State of Illinois – and the several States have to honor them or civilization breaks down.    Being an elderly person in Illinois might not be politically correct, but this form of political correctness is barred by the Illinois Constitution, the United States Constitution, and the statutes of the United States of America including but not limited to 42 USCA 12203.     
§ 12203. Prohibition against retaliation and coercion
(a)   Retaliation. No person shall discriminate against any individual because such individual has opposed any act or practice made unlawful by this Act or because such individual made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this Act.
(b)   Interference, coercion, or intimidation. It shall be unlawful to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any individual in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of his or her having exercised or enjoyed, or on account of his or her having aided or encouraged any other individual in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted or protected by this Act.
(c)   Remedies and procedures. The remedies and procedures available under sections 107, 203, and 308 of this Act [42 USCS §§ 12117, 12133, 12188] shall be available to aggrieved persons for violations of subsections (a) and (b), with respect to title I, title II and title III [42 USCS §§ 12111 et seq., 12131et seq., 12181 et seq.], respectively.  42 USCS § 12203
 

The impotent protests by the various victims of elder cleansing (and their families) appear not be heard by law enforcement, but,   they should be as it is in everyone’s self-interest (as everyone ge ts ol


[1] Mary Sykes was an active and articulate senior citizen who discovered that her older daughter had made an unauthorized withdrawal from Mary’s back account.     When the daughter made threats Mary made application to the Circuit Court for a Protective order.    It has been charged that the daughter used the Cook County corruption system to effectuate a defense and to get herself appointed as the plenary guardian for Mary.    An examination of the Court file 09 P 4585 demonstrates the extra=judicial nature of the proceedings and the presence of the elements of elder cleansing, to wit:  1) all the due process requirements set forth as jurisdictional in 755 ILCS 5/11a – 10 were ignored.    Not only was the petition for guardianship defective – it failed to disclose Mary’s two surviving siblings – but no hearing was actually held, the judge and a guardian ad litem counseled the petition on who to contact to obtain a certificate of incompetency, and the Illinois jurisdictional requirement of 14 days prior notice to the nearest family members was ignored.    (The guardianship was a rubber stamp order agreed to by the two guardian ad litem and the petitioner’s attorney – see Adam Stern e-mail to Gloria Sykes).   2)  Mary was isolated from her prior life.    It also appears that the Presiding Judge was notified by one of the two guardian ad litem that the proceedings were being conducted in the venue.    3) Mary’s assets came under the control of the guardian appointed by a court lacking jurisdiction ******.
[2] An ARDC attorney asked me on cross examination whether I was repentant for writing the Attorney General of the United States a letter complaining about elder cleansing.    As you see I am not repentant and continue to write and ask for an honest complete and comprehensive investigation of this National scandal.
[3] The jurisdictional criterion of 755 ILCS 5/10 (Illinois Guardianship Act) is routinely ignored in the Probate Division of the Circuit Court sitting in Cook County, Illinois.     The Illinois Supreme Court has ruled that these provisions are jurisdictional; however, it appears to consider the reporting of the violations by attorneys to be ethically challenged and warranting long suspensions of the right to practice law.
§ 755 ILCS 5/11a-10. Procedures preliminary to hearing
·         Sec. 11a-10.   Procedures preliminary to hearing. (a) Upon the filing of a petition pursuant to Section 11a-8 [755 ILCS 5/11a-8], the court shall set a date and place for hearing to take place within 30 days. The court shall appoint a guardian ad litem to report to the court concerning the respondent’s best interests consistent with the provisions of this Section, except that the appointment of a guardian ad litem shall not be required when the court determines that such appointment is not necessary for the protection of the respondent or a reasonably informed decision on the petition. If the guardian ad litem is not a licensed attorney, he or she shall be qualified, by training or experience, to work with or advocate for the developmentally disabled, mentally ill, physically disabled, the elderly, or persons disabled because of mental deterioration, depending on the type of disability that is alleged in the petition. The court may allow the guardian ad litem reasonable compensation. The guardian ad litem may consult with a person who by training or experience is qualified to work with persons with a developmental disability, persons with mental illness, or physically disabled persons, or persons disabled because of mental deterioration, depending on the type of disability that is alleged. The guardian ad litem shall personally observe the respondent prior to the hearing and shall inform him orally and in writing of the contents of the petition and of his rights under Section 11a-11 [755 ILCS 5/11a-11]. The guardian ad litem shall also attempt to elicit the respondent’s position concerning the adjudication of disability, the proposed guardian, a proposed change in residential placement, changes in care that might result from the guardianship, and other areas of inquiry deemed appropriate by the court. Notwithstanding any provision in the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Confidentiality Act [740 ILCS 110/1 et. seq.] or any other law, a guardian ad litem shall have the right to inspect and copy any medical or mental health record of the respondent which the guardian ad litem deems necessary, provided that the information so disclosed shall not be utilized for any other purpose nor be redisclosed except in connection with the proceedings. At or before the hearing, the guardian ad litem shall file a written report detailing his or her observations of the respondent, the responses of the respondent to any of the inquires detailed in this Section, the opinion of the guardian ad litem or other professionals with whom the guardian ad litem consulted concerning the appropriateness of guardianship, and any other material issue discovered by the guardian ad litem. The guardian ad litem shall appear at the hearing and testify as to any issues presented in his or her report.
o    (b)   The court (1) may appoint counsel for the respondent, if the court finds that the interests of the respondent will be best served by the appointment, and (2) shall appoint counsel upon respondent’s request or if the respondent takes a position adverse to that of the guardian ad litem. The respondent shall be permitted to obtain the appointment of counsel either at the hearing or by any written or oral request communicated to the court prior to the hearing. The summons shall inform the respondent of this right to obtain appointed counsel. The court may allow counsel for the respondent reasonable compensation.
o    (c)   If the respondent is unable to pay the fee of the guardian ad litem or appointed counsel, or both, the court may enter an order for the petitioner to pay all such fees or such amounts as the respondent or the respondent’s estate may be unable to pay. However, in cases where the Office of State Guardian is the petitioner, consistent with Section 30 of the Guardianship and Advocacy Act [20 ILCS 3955/30], where the public guardian is the petitioner, consistent with Section 13-5 of the Probate Act of 1975 [55 ILCS 5/13-5], where an adult protective services agency is the petitioner, pursuant to Section 9 of the Adult Protective Services Act [320 ILCS 20/9] , or where the Department of Children and Family Services is the petitioner under subparagraph (d) of subsection (1) of Section 2-27 of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 [705 ILCS 405/2-27], no guardian ad litem or legal fees shall be assessed against the Office of State Guardian, the public guardian, the adult protective services agency, or the Department of Children and Family Services.
o    (d)   The hearing may be held at such convenient place as the court directs, including at a facility in which the respondent resides.
o    (e)   Unless he is the petitioner, the respondent shall be personally served with a copy of the petition and a summons not less than 14 days before the hearing . The summons shall be printed in large, bold type and shall include the following notice:
                        NOTICE OF RIGHTS OF RESPONDENT
   You have been named as a respondent in a guardianship petition asking that 
you be declared a disabled person. If the court grants the petition, a 
guardian will be appointed for you. A copy of the guardianship petition is 
attached for your convenience.
The date and time of the hearing are:
The place where the hearing will occur is:
The Judge’s name and phone number is:
   If a guardian is appointed for you, the guardian may be given the right to 
make all important personal decisions for you, such as where you may live, 
what medical treatment you may receive, what places you may visit, and who may 
visit you. A guardian may also be given the right to control and manage your 
money and other property, including your home, if you own one. You may lose 
the right to make these decisions for yourself.
    You have the following legal rights:
§  (1)   You have the right to be present at the court hearing.
§  (2)   You have the right to be represented by a lawyer, either one that you 
retain, or one appointed by the Judge.
§  (3)   You have the right to ask for a jury of six persons to hear your case.
§  (4)   You have the right to present evidence to the court and to confront and 
cross-examine witnesses.
§  (5)   You have the right to ask the Judge to appoint an independent expert to 
examine you and give an opinion about your need for a guardian.
§  (6)   You have the right to ask that the court hearing be closed to the 
public.
§  (7)   You have the right to tell the court whom you prefer to have for your 
guardian.
   You do not have to attend the court hearing if you do not want to be there. 
If you do not attend, the Judge may appoint a guardian if the Judge finds that 
a guardian would be of benefit to you. The hearing will not be postponed or 
canceled if you do not attend.
   IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT YOU ATTEND THE HEARING IF YOU DO NOT WANT A 
GUARDIAN OR IF YOU WANT SOMEONE OTHER THAN THE PERSON NAMED IN THE 
GUARDIANSHIP PETITION TO BE YOUR GUARDIAN. IF YOU DO NOT WANT A GUARDIAN OF IF YOU HAVE ANY OTHER PROBLEMS, YOU SHOULD CONTACT AN ATTORNEY OR COME TO COURT AND TELL THE JUDGE.
Service of summons and the petition may be made by a private person 18 years of age or over who is not a party to the action.
o    (f)   Notice of the time and place of the hearing shall be given by the petitioner by mail or in person to those persons, including the proposed guardian, whose names and addresses appear in the petition and who do not waive notice, not less than 14 days before the hearing.    755 ILCS 5/11a-10

1 thought on “From Ken Ditkowsky — N Korea is closer than we think

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