From: kenneth ditkowsky <email@example.com>
To: illinoisgov <firstname.lastname@example.org>, “email@example.com”Subject: Fw: ARDC v. JMD – Motion to vacate all orders as void abintio, Strike Trial Testimony and Reinstate License Instanter–court reporter NOT licensed
Date: May 21, 2016 9:07 AM
Attachments: ARDC v. JMD – 052116 -Motion2Vac.all.orders.exhs.pdf ARDC v JMD 051716- MTVacate.all.orders.doc
Pursuant to Rule 8.3 and 18 USCA 4 I am reporting once again the criminal activity in which Jerome Larkin has pursuant to his violation of 18 USCA 371 18 USCA 1341 18 USCA 241,242 actively promulgated a massive cover-up of corrupt judicial activity including but not limited to criminal activity by corrupt lawyers and judges against the elderly and the disabled.
Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2016 6:56 AM
Subject: Re: ARDC v. JMD – Motion to vacate all orders as void abintio, Strike Trial Testimony and Reinstate License Instanter–court reporter NOT licensed
The efforts of Jerome Larkin and his 18 USCA 371 have no bounds. It is absolutely amazing that the entire band of “Lawyers” operating out of the IARDC office in Chicago are not in jail.
I practiced law for over fifty years and during my career until I got involved with the two guardians ad litem, the IARDC and the attorney for the guardian in the Sykes case 09 P 4585 I could not even contemplate such perfidy, ignorance, intellectual dishonesty and outright dishonesty. Yes, I had run into my share of lawyers who were dishonest, but, the overwhelming majority of lawyers were not only honest, but very nice and decent people. I knew going in that Judge Connors was ‘wired’ as Rule 137 was clearly not applicable and she was trying to intimidate me rather that adjudicate. The Evidence confirmed it.
What you motion will address before the Supreme Court of Illinois is not you conduct, but whether or not the judges of the Illinois Supreme Court have integrity or whether they are political hacks. Larkin has violated his oath and his position of trust. He has more than gone the extra mile to protect the two guardian ad litem, corrupt judge, corrupt lawyers, climate of breach of fiduciary relationship and outright fraud and tax evasion.
Larkin’s duty was to protect the public from dishonest attorneys. In particular it was to protect senior citizens from lawyers who would facilitate their isolation, their exploitation, abuse, loss of rights and theft by fiduciaries. Why should Larkin, Farenga, Schmiedel, Stern, Connors, Black or any of the attorneys employed by either the State of Illinois object to an HONEST INVESTIGATION of any claim of abuse?
Indeed, it is very clear that after promulgating for you at your disciplinary hearing a kangaroo trial with a predetermined result (fix/wired) so you would be properly induced to ‘shut up!’ having cut off you source of income, Larkin promulgated over=charges on court reporter fees and fees from unlicensed individuals claiming to be court reporters as a vehicle of FRAUD on the Supreme Court of Illinois. The spoliation of evidence, perjury, subordination of perjury appears to be SOP at the agency. (IARDC). It is consistent with the racism. (Amu case, and the refusal to allow Diane Nash access to the hearing room when at the same time admitting Gloria Sykes – who happens to have a lighter skin color and not known as an Icon of the Civil Rights movement (Selma March).
A key point that should be in your filings is the fact that the BURDEN OF PROOF is on the IARDC to prove by CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE their allegations. The affidavits of Gloria Sykes and Scott Evans, as well as the Evidence Deposition of Judge Connors (page 91) all are clear and convincing evidence that Jerome Larkin and the IARDC attorneys covered up the horribly wrongful proceedings in the Sykes case and he and each attorney involved has had an overt role. The Court file which was excluded from the evidence clearly demonstrates the absolute perjury by Larkin.
Larkin cannot find in the file a summons that complies with 755 ILCS 5/11a -10.
Larkin cannot find a return of service in the file that specifically says that on such and such date that a particular sheriff’s Deputy served Mary Sykes. The Sheriff has written a letter pointing out that his office did not serve Mary Sykes. (However, Peter Schmiedel will claim that there was ‘bench’ service of something.)
Larkin cannot demonstrate that any NOTICE (oral or written) was given to the next of kin (near/close relatives) 14 days prior to a hearing to determine if a guardian should be appointed and the extent and nature of Mary’s alleged disability.
Larkin cannot find in the record any actual hearing to determine if Mary was disabled and the extent and nature of the hearing. ALL OF THE FOREGOING ARE JURISDICTIONAL
Try as he may, Larkin cannot undo the admission of Judge Connors on page 91 of her Evidence Deposition or the August transcripts of proceedings in her Courtroom.
All of the foregoing I said before, and everyone is aware of it; however, this is only the tip of the iceberg as there has developed a cottage industry targeting the elderly and the disabled and using the Courthouse to coverup the criminal activities.
The line in the sand has been crossed!
Either action occurs now, or Americans are no longer safe to grow old! A few gray hairs is a red flag and an opportunity for corrupt lawyers, public officials and health care professionals such as nursing home operators to exploit us old farts!