From Ken Ditkowsky, no reason for my interrim suspension, other than politics and a witch hunt

To: Tom Fields <>, ‘Juliette Fairley’ <>, Eric Holder <>, Probate Sharks <>, Tim NASGA <>, “JoAnne M. Denison” <>, Nasga Us <>, Matt Senator Kirk <>, “FBI- ( (” <>, Chicago FBI <>, BILL DITKOWSKY <>, Chicago Tribune <>, SUNTIMES <>, Janet Phelan <>, “J. Ditkowsky” <>, FOX News Network LLC <>, Fiduciary Watch <>, “Y. ACLU” <>, “ComplaintAdmin ADA (CRT)” <>, Bev Cooper <>, Ginny Johnson <>, Glenda Martinez <>, Diane Nash <>, Cook County States Attorney <>, Scott Evans <>, ISBA Main Discussion Group <>, RosANNa Miller <>, Edward Carter <>, “” <>, Sam Sugar <>, Barbara Stone <>, Candice Schwager <>, “Mr. Lanre Amu — Honest Atty Unfairly Persecuted By ARDC” <>, Nancy Vallone <>, Cook Sheriff <>, Elaine Renoire <>, Illinois ARDC <>, Robert Sarhan <>, Alyece Russell <>, Rabbi Moshe Soloveitchik <>, “” <>, Eric Blair <>, Jay Goldman <>, “Jim (” <>, Len Holland <>, Martin Kozak <>, Kathie Bakken <>, Janet Phelan <>, Martha Jantho <>, “” <>, Doug Franks <>, John Howard Wyman <>, 60m Cbs News <>, Mary Richards <>, “Truthbetoldradio (” <>, Kevin Pizzarello <>, ACLU of Illinois <>, “” <>, Wsj Lts <>, “” <>, Doug Franks <>, Greg Coleman <>, Harry Heckert <>, “” <>, Sylvia Rudek NASGA <>, “” <>, The Disability Discussion Docket – Official E-mail List of the Commission On Disability Right <>, The Weekly Standard <>, “” <>, “” <>, Marti Oakley <>
Subject: Re: James Fairley and Monday’s White House Conference on Aging regional forum
Date: Apr 29, 2015 12:14 PM
With the interim suspension of JoAnne Denison by the Illinois Supreme Court it occurred to me that there was some wrongful conduct that was been exposed.    The Rule states:
·         (a)  Grounds for Suspension.   During the pendency of a criminal indictment, criminal information, disciplinary proceeding or disciplinary investigation, the court on its own motion, or on the Administrator’s petition for a rule to show cause, may suspend an attorney from the practice of  law until further order of the court. The petition shall allege:
o    (1)   The attorney-respondent has been formally charged with the commission of a crime which involves moral turpitude or reflects adversely upon his fitness to practice  law, a nd there appears to be persuasive evidence to support the charge; or
o    (2)   A complaint has been voted by the Inquiry Board; the attorney-respondent has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct which involves fraud or moral turpitude or threatens irreparable injury to the public , his or her clients, or to the orderly administration of justice; and there appears to be persuasive evidence to support the charge.
·         (b)  Form and Service of Petition.   The petition shall be verified or supported by affidavit or other evidence and shall be filed with the clerk. The petition shall be served personally upon the respondent. If the respondent is unavailable or respondent’s whereabouts is unknown, the respondent shall be served by mailing a copy of the petition by ordinary mail to respondent’s last address shown on the Master Roll.
·         (c)  Suspension Order and Conditions of Suspension.   The court may make such orders and impose such conditions of the  interim suspension as it deems necessary to protect the interests of the public and the orderly administration of justice, including but not limited to:
o    (1)   Notification to clients of the respondent’s  interim suspension;
o    (2)   Audit of the respondent’s books, records, and accounts;
o    (3)   Appointment of a trustee to manage respondent’s affairs; and
o    (4)   Physical and mental examination of the respondent.
Ill. Sup. Ct., R 774
The grounds for an interim suspension are FRAUD, MORAL TURPITUDE, and OR IRREPARABLE INJURY TO THE PUBLIC.
Exactly how does a lawyer maintaining a blog that discloses Fraud, Moral Turpitude or official conduct that causes irreparable injury to the public i.e. violations of Federal, State, and Constitutional  by the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission administrator and those acting in concert with him qualify for an interim suspension of the said lawyers law license?       If exposure of such conduct is unethical than the United States Attorney and the attorneys who successfully prosecuted several score of criminal actions by jurists and judicial officials in the Operation Greylord scandal all are as guilty as JoAnne Denison.
The actions of the Supreme Court of Illinois are similarly suspect in the case of Lanre Amu.     His crime was complying with In re: Himmel, [1]        Exactly how an attorney can receive an interim (and a three year) suspension for reporting a judge whose acts in questionable manner to the judicial authorities has not been explained.     How compliance with a Federal Statute 18 USCA 4 is fraud, involves moral turpitude, or injures the public is similarly a mystery that the Supreme Court of Illinois has yet to enlighten the voting public.
With the Supreme Court of the United States holding in United States v. Alvarez 132 S. Ct 2537, 42 USCA 12203, 47 USCA 230, 320 ILCS 20/4, 18 USCA 110/5, 18 USCA 241, 18 USCA 242, 18 USCA 2, 18 USCA 3, and 18 USCA 4 all prohibiting the suspension how did the Illinois Supreme Court enter an order decreeing the interim suspension?
A little history might be relevant.    It is a common complaint of the families of the ‘elder cleansing’ victims that they cannot find attorneys who will undertake to represent either them or the designative victims.     In a Florida case the victim’s family watching the dissipation of an elderly victim’s estate (and in particular valuable real estate) complained that they had run though almost a dozen attorneys who started the assignment with great enthusiasm only to suddenly drop the case.     In the Sykes case 09 P 4585 Gloria Sykes had a similar problem.     JoAnne Denison was not frightened off, so the Guardian ad Litem complained that she had a ‘conflict of interest.’     The conflict alleged was that she had witnessed a document in a totally unrelated matter.     Other lawyers suddenly lost heart when threatened either by the Judge or someone else as to possible loss of law license.
Flash back to my situation.    First I was threatened by the guardian ad litem and the attorney for the plenary guardian that if I did not cease and desist my investigation of the Sykes matter I would be sanctions.     Indeed, I was even though the Judge, the two guardian ad litem and the attorney for the plenary guardian appointed under highly questionable circumstances all knew that the Court had no jurisdiction over me.      An Appellate Court decision reversed the almost $5000.00 sanction.    However, Jerome Larkin and the Illinois Attorney Disciplinary Commission when informed by Cynthia Farenga (one of the Guardians ad litem) that I was asking for an HONEST investigation commenced disciplinary proceedings against me.
It looks like a duck, swims like a duck, has feathers like a duck, and it smells like duck.      There is thus no reason to not recognize that as part of the ‘elder cleansing’ scenario the co-conspirators are actively, notoriously, and openly not only violating the Americans With Disabilities Act, operating beyond the legal limits of the guardianship statutes, openly and notorious violating the Civil and human Rights of the elderly and the disabled, BUT are preventing the victims and their families from having legal representation by fraud, actions of moral turpitude, and actions that can cause irreparable injury to the public.
The action of the Supreme Court of Illinois in the interim suspension of JoAnne Denison is a shot across the bow of America’s core values.       Kim Jong of North Korea would be really proud of the Justices of the Supreme Court of Illinois, but, America’s founding fathers and America’s heroes would hang their heads in shame.

[1] The Administrator’s complaint alleged that the attorney had knowledge of another attorney’s (attorney two) conversion of client funds and failed to inform the Commission of this misconduct. The facts showed that client funds were converted by attorney two and the client then looked to the attorney for recovery of her funds from attorney two. The client asked the attorney not to report attorney two’s misconduct. The attorney was to receive a portion of any fees collected and thus he had an incentive not to report the conduct if it meant collecting his fee. Once all of this was known, attorney two was suspended from the practice of law and the attorney was brought up for disciplinary proceedings. The attorney defended his actions by stating that his client asked him not to report attorney two’s misconduct and that the information provided by his client was privileged. The court found the information was not privileged where communicated  in  the presence of third parties and found that the client’s request did not relieve the attorney of his professional obligation to report the misconduct of other attorneys. The court found, further, that discipline was necessary.  The court ordered that the attorney be suspended from the practice of law for one year.  In re Himmel, 125 Ill. 2d 531, 534, 533 N.E.2d 790, 790, 1988 Ill. LEXIS 121, 1, 127 Ill. Dec. 708, 708 (Ill. 1988)

1 thought on “From Ken Ditkowsky, no reason for my interrim suspension, other than politics and a witch hunt

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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