From Charles E Lincoln–Burdick v. 5 Justices and how Judicial Immunity is destroying the US and its Judicial System

I just received this brief on an Alabama civil rights Lawyer complaining about how the concept of Judicial Immunity really has nearly no place in the US legal system and in fact is destroying it.

You can find this amazing brief here:

And it has tons of quotes regarding limiting judicial immunity to the bare minimum, how the concept of Judicial Immunity isn’t even in the US Constitution, and how the founding persons of this country actually rejected the concept of absolute Judicial Immunity in favor of strictly constrained Judicial Immunity in favor of transparency and accountability.

It is explained in this Brief how it was the English Common law system that created Judicial Immunity based upon the fact that the King of the land was chosen by God, and therefore sat as God in a courtroom and could never, ever, do anything wrong.

However, going back as far as the Magna Carta in 1215, the people of England restricted the expansive and never ending whimsical powers of a sovereign in favor of a “Social Contract” style of judicial temperance which made the judges responsible for the life and liberty interest of the populace.  The Magna Carta was the first time in England that at least some of its citizens were given legal rights superior to that of the whims of the King.

Charles I of England, however, defied the people and those working for a “Social Contract” style of judiciary, and continued to assert his powers were absolute, he had no duty to the people, and for this he was charged with Treason and eventually hung. See this brief for more details.

Today someone asked me how much Judges make and I found the following quote:

Despite declining caseloads, stagnant population and the state’s growing deficit, Illinois taxpayers will spend about $39 million more on judicial salaries this year than they did just eight years ago.


There are 56 more judges on the bench today than there were in 2004, and all 967 judges receive a constitutionally guaranteed raise every year.

Illinois’ trial judges — 906 of them on the bench throughout the state — receive the highest salaries for such a post in the country, according to data compiled by a national judicial research organization. The state’s 523 circuit judges make $180,802 a year, while the current roster of 383 associate judges make $171,762 annually. California follows Illinois, paying its highest-ranking trial judges a maximum of $178,789.

Illinois appellate court judges, 54 of them, make $197,032 a year. And the seven Supreme Court justices make $209,344. The higher court jurists have the second-highest salaries in the country, only behind California.

Combined, Illinois judges will be paid $172.6 million in 2012. The payout is 29 percent more than 2004’s.

The high salaries, on top of the increased number of judges, have some critics worried about the impact to taxpayers who help fund the already lucrative judicial pension program. While some retirement benefits have been curbed by recent legislation, that only affects new judges. The vast majority of judges currently on the bench will receive 85 percent of their final salary if they serve 20 years. Judicial pensions also receive an automatic 3 percent cost-of-living increase that’s compounded annually. Most public pensions require 30 to 35 years on the job and max out at 75 percent of a worker’s salary.

“That is a concern, especially when you look at caseloads per judge,” said Kristina Rasmussen, executive vice president of the Illinois Policy Institute, a government spending watchdog organization with offices in Chicago and Springfield. “Our judges, compared to some neighboring states like Wisconsin and Indiana, have lower caseloads, but they’re being paid $60,000 more.”

A study conducted by The U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Conference of State Court Administrators and National Center for State Courts shows that in 2009 Indiana trial judges handled 4,983 cases on average and Wisconsin judges averaged 6,611 cases a year. But the top-ranking judges in those states made almost $50,000 less a year than their counterparts in Illinois who averaged 4,533 cases.

“We’re a state with a relatively low cost of living,” said Collin Hitt, senior director of government affairs for the Illinois Policy Institute. “Why are our judges being paid considerably more than judges across the country? It’s a question with no obvious answer.”

Joe Tybor, a spokesman for the state court administrator, noted that the judiciary budget is “less than 1 percent of the entire state budget” and judicial salaries represent “54 percent of the branch’s budget.”

“Judges have really no control over their salary,” he said. “The overall judicial budget has been flat or declined for the past several years.”

Still, at the same time, the national study showed Illinois felony cases declined 13 percent from a high of 103,642 in 2002 to 90,176 in 2009. The study did not include details on civil, misdemeanor, juvenile or other cases handled by trial judges during that time.

Felonies are handled by full circuit court judges. Despite the felony caseload decline, there are 29 more circuit judges on the bench today than in 2004, according to records reported by the Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts.


Please read the attached brief, it’s important for everyone to understand that we must not allow our Judicial System to run amok. And when lawyers such as I, Ken Ditkowsky and Lane Amu demand judicial transparency, accountability and oversight we are severely disciplined. For this the ARDC awards us with a license suspension from 3 to 4 years and until “further order of court.”

Now is the time to demand accountability, before we lose entirely our precious US Constitution in which no where are to be found the word “judicial immunity.”

The courts do not have a constitutional right to any Judicial Immunity.  Conversely, We the People were provided with a Bill of Rights to ensure that for every wrong, there is in fact a remedy–including when the source of the breach is our own Judicial System and its Courts.


From Ken Ditkowsky–Chicago called center of fraud in Home Health care Medicare/Medicaid

Subject: Health care fraud – Time for that honest investigation that Jerome Larkin and the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission are fighting so hard to prevent.
Date: Jan 29, 2017 9:58 PM
It appears that one of the large nursing home operators is reported to be worried that he is soon to be indicted, and another who allegedly lied to the FBI is concerned that his frugality with the truth might have consequences.    We know that the United States Government is interested in preventing medicare and other health care fraud and we also know that the political and judicial climate is creating some severe head winds.    Indeed, Mr. Larkin has written to the Supreme Court of Illinois that a blog that exposes judicial and other legal industry corruption is akin to “yelling fire in a crowded theater.”   We know that scavenging in the mouth of an elderly grandmother for the gold in her teeth is in the highest traditions of bar according to Jerome Larkin.  (Mr. Larkin was defending the actions of a infamous Guardian ad Litem who orchestrated the operation and the pulling of 29 teeth to free the gold  – which of course was not inventoried).
I did find the following, to wit:

Chicago a hot spot for home health fraud

Health Care Activists Offer Free Health Screenings In Los Angeles

This Chicago metropolitan area is one of 27 geographic “hot spots” identified by an analysis of Medicare claims data by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Inspector General.

(David McNew / Getty Images)

Chicago’s home health care industry has a big fraud problem and a federal study released Wednesday suggests more scrutiny may be warranted.
The metropolitan area is one of 27 geographic “hot spots” identified by an analysis of Medicare claims data by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Inspector General. The examination found dozens of home health agencies and physicians in the Chicago area whose recent Medicare claims have characteristics similar to those observed in cases of fraud.
Federal authorities are paying close attention to home health because it is playing a growing role in U.S. health care as insurers and physicians increasingly seek to manage patients with chronic conditions and keep them out of emergency rooms, hospitals and nursing homes.
In 2015, the Medicare insurance program for the elderly paid $18.4 billion to more than 11,000 home health businesses. At more than $900 million, the Chicago region had the most home health payments last year, according to the report.
Chicago has been long recognized as having high rates of home health fraud, so much so that in 2013 the federal government imposed its first moratorium on new home care businesses in the six-county region.
Federal authorities in Chicago also have pursued fraudsters aggressively. Dozens of physicians, nurses, home health agency owners and marketers have been charged and convicted in recent years. The investigations have revealed many problems, including doctors taking kickbacks for referrals and approving home nursing visits for patients who were not homebound.
The indictments keep coming. On Wednesday, the Justice Department announced charges against a physician with an office in Buffalo Grove, Dr. Yevgeny Odessky, who is accused of taking cash kickbacks in exchange for referring patients to a home health agency in the north suburbs. Odessky was not immediately available for comment.
In addition, the owners of two home health providers, Schaumburg-based Axis Health Care Services and Glenview-based TLC Healthcare Services of Illinois, have been charged with paying kickbacks to recruiters in exchange for referring elderly patients.
The charges were part of what officials said Wednesday was the largest crackdown on Medicare fraud since a federal health care investigations team was started nine years ago. Federal agents have arrested about 300 suspects around the country, on charges ranging from taking illegal payments to false physical therapy claims that allegedly cost Medicare about $900 million.
Despite numerous successful prosecutions, home health fraud remains an issue, said Adam Freeman, a leader of the study by the Office of Inspector General.
The study flagged 37 home health providers and 257 physicians in the Chicago area as having suspicious Medicare claims. It didn’t identify any of them by name.
Twitter @ameetsachdev
Hundreds of elderly victims of elder cleansing (also known as retroactive abortion) lie doped up in nursing homes as the US Treasury is raped unmercifly.     (Philip ESformes has been indicted of stealing a billion dollars in Medicare funds as an example).
The Government Accounting Office has filed five reports to Congress on this matter.   The abuse and forfeit of the human rights of senior citizens is not a secret!   Jerome Larkin and his gang of miscreants (18 USCA 371) have been for years covering up the criminal enterprise being conducted by some corrupt Judges on the 18th Floor of the Daley Center.    Larkin did not blink an eye when Judge Maureen Connors admitted on page 91 of her evidence deposition to being wired (fixed).   He was not impressed when he examined file 09 P 4585 and observed that the victim (Mary Sykes) had not been served with the summons mandated by 755 ILCS 5/11a – 10, her next of kin were not notified of a competency hearing as required by 755 ILCS 5/11a – 10 that is jurisdictional, no competency hearing was ever held, ******
The fix occurring in disciplinary hearings is also legend.    A panel of Larkin’s Lackeys without a scintilla of evidence presented to them found that Mary’s next of kin had knowledge of the very hearing as to Mary’s competency that was never held.  Inconsistency and Factual reality are not necessary in the Jerome Larkin world.   He like his co-conspirators operate under the banner of “do not confuse me with the facts, I’ve made up my mind.’
Progress appears to be being made!    Illinois is on the verge of Bankruptcy.   As billions of dollars in the Illinois conspiracy have been stolen, the Illinois Department of Revenue ought to start collecting the taxes, interest and penalties due jointly and severally by the co-conspirators.   Pursuant to 18 USCA 371 it is my opinion that Jerome Larkin and each of his lackeys has joint and several liability.  Time for each one of them to PAY UP!!!!

From Ken Ditkowsky–Chicago man indicted on $4.7 million in Medicaid over billing & fraud

Department of Justice
U.S. Attorney’s Office
Central District of Illinois

Wednesday, January 25, 2017

Co-owner of Chicago Medical Transport Company Sentenced to Five Years in Prison for Overbilling Illinois Medicaid $4.7 Million

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. – A Chicago man has been sentenced to five years in prison for fraudulent overbilling an estimated $4.7 million to Illinois’ Medicaid program for non-emergency medical transport. Gregory D. Toran, 68, of Hazel Crest, Ill., was also ordered to pay $4.7 million in restitution. U.S. District Judge Sue E. Myerscough, who sentenced Toran on Jan. 23, allowed Toran to remain on bond until the federal Bureau of Prisons directs him to self-report to a prison facility to begin his prison sentence.
Toran owned IBT Transportation, LLC., a non-emergency medical transport company, with Tina Kimbrough, 44, of Berwyn, Ill. In August, Kimbrough was sentenced to 30 months in prison for her role in the scheme. Kimbrough previously pled guilty to participating in the conspiracy with Toran. Kimbrough was also ordered to pay $4 million restitution, due jointly and severally with Toran.
As a result of the scheme, IBT fraudulently overbilled the state’s Medicaid program by an estimated $4.7 million for services not rendered, not rendered to the extent claimed, and for mileage well in excess of miles actually driven. During the period of the conspiracy, from December 2005 to June 2011, IBT billed and was paid claims totaling approximately $7.3 million.
The court found that IBT billed for deceased individuals and individuals who were not transported because they were in the hospital and billed based on dates individuals were approved for transportation, whether they rode or not. At times, IBT billed for more riders than it could physically transport. Further, the court found that although the handbook mileage rules were straightforward that transportation providers could only bill mileage for the first rider, Toran directed billers to incorrectly bill for mileage – from not billing mileage at all, to billing mileage for all riders, and later, every fourth rider.
The charges were investigated by the Illinois State Police Medicaid Fraud Control Bureau; the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service. In addition, the Illinois Department of Health and Family Services, which administers Illinois’ Medicaid program, assisted in the investigation. Assistant U.S. Att

From Candice Schwager–Deaf Woman settles ADA suit for $750k

NEW YORK — A New York City woman, who is deaf and says NYPD officers wrongfully arrested her and then ignored her pleas for an American Sign Language interpreter, has settled her lawsuit against the city for $750,000, a sum her lawyers say is the largest ever deaf discrimination settlement for a single person.

“Our client is pleased that she can now move on with her life and put this horrific situation behind her,” Andrew Rozynski and Eric Baum, the lawyers representing 58-year-old Diana Williams, said in a statement Tuesday.

Diana Williams won a $750,000 settlement in a lawsuit against the NYPD.

“Due to the immense barriers they face when trying to communicate with the hearing world, Deaf individuals often find themselves without a voice to assert their rights,” Rozynski and Baum added. “Deaf individuals have rights, and they do not have to tolerate discrimination and injustices of any kind.”

Williams and her husband, Chris Williams, both of whom are deaf, are landlords of a building in Staten Island. On Sept. 11, 2011, when the couple were trying to evict tenants who hadn’t paid rent, the boyfriend of one of the tenants allegedly gestured that he had a gun.

Chris then called for police using a video relay service — which the couple later argued should’ve signified to police that they would need a sign language translator. But when officers arrived on the scene there was no translator, and it was only the tenant and the boyfriend, both of whom can hear, who could communicate their side of the story.

Some deaf tenants in the building later testified that the officers rejected their offers to translate for Williams, who cannot hear, speak English or read lips. Instead, Williams was arrested for allegedly getting into a fight with one of the tenants.

Panicked, Williams attempted to scrawl “HOSPITAL” in the dust on the window of the police cruiser, according to The New York Daily News. She made it to “HOSP.”

Williams was detained for 24 hours, during which a translator was never provided. She was released without charge.

“It is a sad reality that Deaf individuals continue to experience blatant discrimination on a routine basis.”

In 2012, Williams filed the federal lawsuit against the city of New York alleging that she had not only been wrongfully arrested, but that NYPD officers had ignored police guidelines for how to deal with the deaf, and in doing so violated the Americans With Disabilities Act.

Earlier this year, lawyers for the city argued that an arrest was neither a “service, program, or activity,” and therefore did not fall under the Americans with Disabilities Act, according to Courthouse News.

But U.S. District Judge Valerie Caproni found the city’s argument woefully unpersuasive.

“New York City takes the extraordinary position that, even though the Americans with Disabilities Act has been the law of the land for 25 years, it has no obligation to provide any accommodation to the hearing-impaired at the time of an arrest, even if doing so could easily be accomplished without endangering the officers or the public safety and without interfering in the lawful execution of the officers’ duties,” she wrote in an August decision, allowing the lawsuit to proceed to trial.

Reached for comment Wednesday, a spokesman for the New York City Law Department said only that “settling this case was in the city’s best interest.”

Advocacy group Helping Educate to Advance the Rights of the Deaf. (HEARD), has documented at least 40 stories of police brutality against deaf Americans in recent years.

“These stories highlight the woeful lack of training about — and awareness of — Deaf culture and communication within police departments across the nation,” HEARD founder Talila Lewis wrote in a 2014 blog post for the American Civil Liberties Union. “They illustrate the urgent need for systemic change.”

“Perhaps as alarming as the frequency and severity of these assaults, is the infrequency and leniency of formal charges against the officers responsible,” Lewis continued. “Deaf survivors of police brutality and family members of deaf homicide victims tend to prevail in lawsuits against police, costing taxpayers dearly, but officers are rarely formally charged or dismissed for their actions.”

Last year, actress Marlee Matlin, who is deaf and is married to a police officer, made a video to help inform deaf people of their rights when interacting with police.

Williams’ lawyers, in their statement Tuesday, said “it is a sad reality that Deaf individuals continue to experience blatant discrimination on a routine basis.”

“Ms. Williams hopes that the settlement will send a message to all law enforcement agencies across the country that they should adopt proper policies and procedures to ensure full communication access for Deaf individuals,” they said.

Suggest a correction

Constitutional Right to Be a Parent

Here are some Great quotes on the Constitutionalright to be a parent

Parental Rights

Below are excerpts of case law from state appellate and federal district courts and up to the U.S. Supreme Court, all of which affirm, from one perspective or another, the absolute Constitutional right of parents to actually BE parents to their children.

The rights of parents to the care, custody and nurture of their children is of such character that it cannot be denied without violating those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions, and such right is a fundamental right protected by this amendment (First) and Amendments 5, 9, and 14. Doe v. Irwin, 441 F Supp 1247; U.S. D.C. of Michigan, (1985).

The several states have no greater power to restrain individual freedoms protected by the First Amendment than does the Congress of the United States. Wallace v. Jaffree, 105 S Ct 2479; 472 US 38, (1985).

View original post 2,272 more words

From JPi-what is “color of authority” and “color of law” under 42 USC sec 1983?

From Lugar v. Edmunson Oil

42 USC 1983 is used when a court is faced with “fraud on the court” or fraud extrinsic to the proceeding, or not between the parties.  Fraud on the court is where there are :  bribes, suppressed transcripts, no transcripts, court reporter told not to set up, case fixing, changed transcripts, ex parte conversations, cases sealed without notice, mortion or hearing on the matter, etc.


42 USC is “deprivation of rights under color of authority.”  This means the court’s authority is fake or an illusion and is not real.  It is typically used in cases of false imprisonment or where the prisoner is beat up by police.  The police have real power to ask a suspect to go and do something and to hold or detain them, they do not have any real power to beat up a person in custody.  Those actions are taken under “color of authority.”

From the case:

Similarly, it is clear that in a § 1983 action brought against a state official, the statutory requirement of action “under color of state law” and the “state action” requirement of the Fourteenth Amendment are identical. The Court’s conclusion in United States v.Classic, 313 U. S. 299, 326 (1941), that “[m]isuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law, is action taken `under color of’ state law,” was founded on the rule announced in Ex parte Virginia, 100 U. S. 339, 346-347 (1880), that the actions of a state officer who exceeds the limits of his authority constitute state action for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment.[13]

930*930 The decision of the Court of Appeals rests on a misreading of Flagg Brothers. In that case the Court distinguished two elements of a § 1983 action:

“[Plaintiffs] are first bound to show that they have been deprived of a right `secured by the Constitution and the laws’ of the United States. They must secondly show that Flagg Brothers deprived them of this right acting `under color of any statute’ of the State of New York. It is clear that these two elements denote two separate areas of inquiry. Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., 398 U. S. 144, 150 (1970).” 436 U. S., at 155-156.

Plaintiffs’ case foundered on the first requirement. Because a due process violation was alleged and because the Due Process Clause protects individuals only from governmental and not from private action, plaintiffs had to demonstrate that the sale of their goods was accomplished by state action. The Court concluded that the sale, although authorized by state law, did not amount to state action under the Fourteenth Amendment, and therefore set aside the Court of Appeals’ contrary judgment.

There was no reason in Flagg Brothers to address the question whether there was action under color of state law. The Court expressly eschewed deciding whether that requirement was satisfied by private action authorized by state law. Id., at 156. Although the state-action and under-color-of-state-law requirements are “separate areas of inquiry,” Flagg Brothers did not hold nor suggest that state action, if present, might not satisfy the § 1983 requirement of conduct under color of state law. Nevertheless, the Court of Appeals relied on Flagg Brothers to conclude in this case that state action under the Fourteenth Amendment is not necessarily action under color of state law for purposes of § 1983. We do not agree.

The two-part approach to a § 1983 cause of action, referred to in Flagg Brothers, was derived from Adickes v. 931*931 S. H. Kress & Co., 398 U. S. 144, 150 (1970). Adickes was a § 1983 action brought against a private party, based on a claim of racial discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Although stating that the § 1983 plaintiff must show both that he has been deprived “of a right secured by the `Constitution and laws’ of the United States” and that the defendant acted “under color of any statute . . . of any State,” ibid., we held that the private party’s joint participation with a state official in a conspiracy to discriminate would constitute both “state action essential to show a direct violation of petitioner’s Fourteenth Amendment equal protection rights” and action ” `under color’ of law for purposes of the statute.” Id., at 152.[14] In 932*932 support of our conclusion that a private party held to have violated the Fourteenth Amendment “can be liable under § 1983,” ibid., we cited that part of United States v. Price, 383 U. S., at 794, n. 7, in which we had concluded that state action and action under color of state law are the same (quoted supra, at 928). Adickes provides no support for the Court of Appeals’ novel construction of § 1983.[15]

457 US 922 Lugar v. Edmonson Oil

This was a  case where a judge allowed property to be liened and impounded prior to judgment.  In this case, the plaintiffs argued they believed that assets of the defendant would be sold and liquidated prior to judgment and they asked the court to seize the assets on the Defendant’s own property, and the court obliged (rubber stamp)


Th US Supreme Cout found this “color of law” state action to be a deprivation of rights under “color of authority”.

From Ken Ditkowsky–President T is against abortions, but will he stop the retroactive type for our senior citizens and the disabled?

Right to Life.
This morning I heard President Trump say that he was defunding organizations that were funding abortions.    Indeed, such is very necessary as across America we have had a rash of illegal abortions.    They are retro-active abortions also known as Elder Cleansing.
The way this abortion process works is that a vulnerable senior citizen is taken into custody of a guardian appointed by a Court, such as the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, and a corrupt jurist appoints a guardian.    This guardian and the Court ignore the mandate of the Bill of Rights and the Illinois Constitution as they totally usurp the elderly person’s freedom, liberty, property and humanity.
Every one of the retro active abortionists who preys upon the elderly, and especially the corrupt judges (whether they sit on the Appellate Courts, the Supreme Courts, or the trial courts is aware of the Americans with Disabilities Statute and the limitation on guardianship found in the Illinois Statutes, to wit:
(b) Guardianship shall be  utilized  only as is necessary to promote the well-being of the person with a disability, 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 – 3b
Indeed, every one of the retro-active abortionists is aware that their action is a felony, but they ignore the RULE OF LAW  and continue their perfidious conduct well knowing that the Judicial and the Political Establishment not only funds their actions but protects them.
President T has promised has promised to “MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN.”     To be great, America must be safe again.    An elderly person must have the assurance that he/she will not be subjected to retroactive abortion for profit.
I previously wrote a challenge to Jerome Larkin.     Mr. Larkin is the administrator of the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission and a person who does not put much stock in truth.    We have nominated Mr. Larkin for a Nobel Price in fiction based upon the frugality with the truth contained in so many of the sworn pleadings that he has filed.       The Mary Sykes case 09 P 4585 demonstrates just what a stranger to objective reality is Larkin.    The Alice Gore case demonstrates his tolerance for expediency as opposed to protecting the public.     I therefore in the interest of drawing attention to the policy of RETROACTIVE ABORTION that has become the rage in several States, i.e.  Illinois, California, Florida *****.

Challenge to Jerome Larkin, Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary commission (IARDC) Administrator Re; Elder Abuse and Retroactive abortion of vulnerable America citizens who just happen to be elderly or disabled.

To:  Jerome Larkin, individually and as Administrator of the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary commission (IARDC) and the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary commission.
From:  Kenneth Ditkowsky
Date:  January 23, 2017  (renewed and republished.)
Subject:    Challenge to you to tell demonstrate that a public office is a public trust, and formal complaint concerning your ethically challenged and illegal conduct.
Cc:    All interested parties, Honorable Attorney General of the United States, Justice Department of the United States, Attorney JoAnne Denison, States Attorney of Cook County, 
Dear Mr. Larkin, and the IARDC Commission,
With the pending scandals that are about to unfold in Washington concerning the participants in the current Presidential race, the public is going need an affirmation of the principle that a public office is a public trust.    I understand that you are the last people to be considered to demonstrate that principle.   Mr. Larkin’s conduct in violation of 18 USCA 4, 241,242, 371, 1341 etc. is a cornucopia of deceit, and perfidy.     Subordination of perjury, perjury, conspiracy, and outright theft are the cornerstones of IARDC procedure and purpose.    Few openly nefarious ‘cover-ups’, obstruction of justice, and spoliation of evidence are notoriously exhibited to the public.
Infamy will preserve your metaphor of Ms. Denison’s blog to yelling fire in a crowded theater, and the intentional misrepresentation by IARDC lawyers in the name of Mr. Larkin of the holdings in Sawyer and Alvarez.     The assaults on the First Amendment by the IARDC and Larkin are akin to ISIS terrorism, however, the ability to marshal the cover-up of the corruption evident in the Mary Sykes case 09 P 4585 (Circuit Court of Cook County) is beyond the pale.     Knowing that guardianships were limited in scope because of Illinois and USA Constitutional core values,  co-conspirator attorneys Adam Stern, Cynthia Farenga, Peter Schmiedel and others used the Illinois guardianship act to openly and notorious isolate Mary Sykes so that her estate could be  looted.   (I’ve estimated the booty at $3,000,000 dollars).    
Mr. Larkin, Ms. Black, et al have accused me of not telling the truth concerning the Mary Sykes case.    The allegation while unspecific accused me of defaming a group of judges claiming that they acted without jurisdiction and without following the law.    Similar averments were made concerning Ms. Denison; however, the Commission added the offense of publishing the corruption in her blog entitled MaryGSykes.     After my kangaroo trial (and during the kangaroo hearing concerning Ms. Denison) a letter surfaced authored by Cynthia Farenga complaining that our averments of corruption had been published in the Probate Sharks blog.    Disciplinary proceeding followed.     Exculpating evidence was barred, and requirement of clear and convincing proof was modified to mean – Larkin clairvoyance!      The Subpoena of the Mary Sykes file, which verifies the truth of every averment made by Ms. Denison and myself was exclude from the evidence.       The rationale was obvious – the ‘fix’ was in and therefore exculpating evidence had to be kept out of the record.
Unfortunately, the Judges whose corruption was being protected could not be totally orchestrated.  (Subordination of perjury).     Judge Connors admitted at page 91 of her deposition that she was ‘wired’ (and/or ‘fixed’).    She testified that had she known of the jurisdictional deficiencies she would have stopped the proceedings, fixed the problem, however, the same result would have occurred.    Judge Stuart outright lied.   First she denied chaining Gloria Sykes (the daughter of Mary Sykes) in her courtroom – in an effort to torture from her the location of her (Gloria’s) assets, and then she (under cross examination) admitted the same.     Larkin solved this problem by attorning to a slight modification of the hearing transcript to eliminate the perjury.     Such spoliation of evidence appears to be quite common in lawyer disciplinary actions [1].
By way of background, as it appears that the IARDC and lawyer disciplinary commissions have during the relevant time period had the policy of interpreting the guardianship statute to not being an accommodation as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act, but as a forfeiture of all human and civil rights.    Interestingly enough the Illinois legislature (as well as the legislatures of most of the States of the union) make it abundantly clear that:
 (b) Guardianship shall be  utilized  only as is necessary to promote the well-being of the person with a disability, 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 – 3b 

 To make certain that senior citizens such as Mary Sykes, Alice Gore, **** are not exploited (as actually occurred) the person seeking a guardianship must prove not only the incompetency but the degree of incompetency by CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE.      (This is the same standard that is applicable to the IARDC disciplinary proceedings)      It is respectfully suggested that in neither proceeding is even the lowest standard of evidence (burden of proof) required.  (See page 91 of Maureen Connors evidence deposition)
Of course, in kangaroo proceedings the result desired by the 18 USCA 371 cover-up is achieved.     It is achieved with or without a scintilla of evidence.      The orchestration of such is the subject of this letter of complaint.     Rule 8.3 and 18 USCA 4 required both JoAnne Denison and myself to offend Ms. Farenga, Ms. Black, Mr. Stern, Mr. Larkin, Ms. Sharp, ***** and all the other attorneys who have participated in the actual miscreant conduct or its cover-up.      As for Ms. Denison, Mr. Lanre Amu, ***** (including myself) to not offend Mr. Larkin and his 18 USCA 371 cover- conspirators we also would be subject to possible obstruction of justice averments.  
We however stood up to be counted and continue every day to demand Honest investigations, collection of the Federal and State income taxes (including interest and penalties) from the 18 USCA 241,242,371 co-conspirators, and abrogation of the cover-up.     NB.   It is my calculation that each conspirator jointly and severally owes very substantial taxes to the USA and the State of Illinois.   For instance, in Sykes @$3 million dollars is due; in Gore $1.5 million, Tyler $8 million *******.    [2]
My challenge .      It appears at this point in time that Jerome Larkin and his 18 USCA 371 co-conspirators are not going to get away with their perfidy.      The term “cover up” is going to be a very serious charge and the ‘great unwashed’ are not going to be led by the corrupt political and judicial machines in a euphoria of procrastination, deception, ******.
Therefore, let us get right to the chase.     While Larkin has consistently refused to detail the charges made against either JoAnne or myself, it is clear that each charge has to do with the Sykes case and the issue of judicial propriety.     Being more specific each charge has to do with whether a corrupt judge ignored a lack of jurisdiction to effectuate the elder cleansing of Mary Sykes.     All the evidence is in the Mary Sykes file 09 P 4585.     This file will unequivocally determine:  
1.         Jurisdiction
2.         Whether safeguards of the Constitution were complied with
3.         Whether a wrongful forfeiture occurred as to Mary’s liberty and property rights.
My challenge is for Mr. Larkin or any of the accused miscreants to produce out of the original file 09 P 4585 (Mary Sykes) the following documents.      If the documents are not produced, honor requires Mr. Larkin and each of his co-conspirators as well as each of appointed guardian ad litem to surrender their law licenses and confess to the United States of America their part in the elder cleansing of Mary Sykes.    Simply put – let us put this matter to rest right now!
1)      Jurisdiction .      In order for a person – disabled or not, the court must meet the due process standard of notice and hearing.    The person who is to be adjudicated must be personally served with summons.   The Summons must meet the criteria of the statute 755 ILCS 5/11a – 10, which is very specific and the criterion procrustean as there may be a taking of constitutionally protected Rights, privileges and immunities.    In addition, there may be a stranger having control over another person’s property .
a.          Challenge:     Produce a copy of a summons that was actually personally served on Mary Sykes prior to any hearing   on her competency that sought to ascertain the extent and nature, if any, of any disability that Mary Sykes might have actually suffered from 755 ILCS 5/11a -3b    This is important as the legislature wanted in writing appropriate warnings so that the rights of the alleged disabled person were protected [3].
b.        Challenge:   Produce a Sheriff’s return of Summons in proper form attesting to actual service on Mary Sykes and the compliance with the Statute. ..    This is particularly important as oral information must be given the alleged disabled person [4].
c.         Challenge:     Produce affidavits of notice being given to next of kin  (close relatives, near relatives) prior to any hearing   that was intended to obtain the information required by 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3b.   This is jurisdictional pursuant to 755 ILCS 5/11a – 10.[5]   The people who should have received the prior notice include both of Mary’s sisters and Gloria Sykes.

2)       Constitutional Safeguards.      As human and civil rights are subject to forfeiture notice and hearing are prime requirements of due process.      The statute is very clear, to wit:

 (b) Guardianship shall be utilized only as is necessary to promote the well-being of the person with a disability, 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. 

Thus it is apparent that this is a very serious hearing and cannot be obviated by agreements of the two guardian ad litem and the attorney for the petitioner.   Actual evidence must be presented that is clear and convincing that the alleged incompetent is in fact incompetent.   Actual evidence must be presented as to the extent of the disability and how a reasonable accommodation must be obtained.

Challenge :     produce a true and correct transcript of the proceedings in which a 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3b hearing was indeed conducted as to the competency and extent thereof of MARY SYKES.    As the Court provides a court reporter for these very serious hearings the official court reporters office should have either filed or have available for transcription such a hearing [6].   (This transcript should be prepared by a person duly licensed in Illinois, not an illegal, unlicensed reporter who was eventually fined and permanently removed from the roles of licensed court reporters, such as was used in the JoAnne Denison proceedings.)

As Mr. Larkin and the IARDC had the burden of proof to prove disciplinary breaches by both Denison and Ditkowsky if the IARDC can not produce the appropriate materials referred to supra, Larkin and every attorney involved directly or indirectly should resign his/her position immediately and surrender his/her law license as each is a participant in a very serious FRAUD. 
If the IARDC and the miscreants can produce from the original file, either in its present form or the sanitized version that has evolved each of the Challenged items both JoAnne and yours truly deserve the punishment meted out plus and I will publicly acknowledge that fact and make a formal apology.  HOWEVER if the IARDC, Larkin, Farenga, Black, Smart, ****  cannot produce the appropriate returns of service from the Sheriff of Cook County, the affidavits of prior notice of the hearing required by 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3b, and a transcript of that hearing each of the attorneys, including the 18 USCA 371 IARDC attorney/attorneys  should resign and surrender his/her license to practice law [7].     
This ‘elder cleansing’ and retro-active abortion is a very serious business.     Core Rights of citizens are being violated and confiscated along with their life savings and quality of life.   In the 1930s and 1940s when the Nazi hordes were systematically prospecting in their victims mouths of the gold in their teeth were shocked and outraged; however, when **** orchestrated a similar scenario not only is not a word of protest forthcoming, but the Illinois Supreme Court and the IARDC join in a massive cover-up and attornment.
The gantlet has been thrown.        Are we willing to accept less than HONESTY and Honor from our public officials?     If so, WHY?       A public office is a public trust.      As Americans we are entitled to HONEST public officials who have actual integrity – not the nadir of society and our population.      Larkin – put up or shut up!      
Let me respectfully suggest that if you cannot produce a majority of the items demanded supra you are admitting to some very serious felonies that not only diminish you but all around you.      Everyone makes errors and thus Americans are universally forgiving.    Intentionally preying on the elderly is one of sins that cannot be forgiven!      Your failure to either produce the items demanded or make restitution for your crimes against the ‘great unwashed’ is unacceptable.
Demand is made to the IARDC and the Illinois Supreme Court to enforce the Rule of Law equally and if Larkin and the miscreants who have acted in concert with him cannot produce the evidence required by this complaint appropriate punishment be handed out to Larkin and his 18 USCA 371 co-conspirators.   This punishment should include, but not be limited to,  each of the co-conspirators being prosecuted civilly for payment of the Federal and State Income taxes on all sums stolen from the retroactively aborted elderly people as well as every dollar of health care funds misappropriate during the abortion process.
The Sums stolen from the public treasury are very substantial.   An indictment of Philip Esformes indicates that a billion ($1,000,000,000) was stolen from medicare.    Seth Gillman was reputed to have stolen at least a hundred million dollars.   A group of doctors in Arizona were accused of stealing from Medicare a 100 million dollars ******.     Illinois is on the verge of Bankruptcy.   
There is no just reason why WE THE PEOPLE should in today’s America fund RETROACTIVE ABORTION which is in direct violation of the American RULE OF LAW.    There is no just reason why certain political and judicial types should be above the Law.
Respectfully submitted,

Ken Ditkowsky

[1] It should be noted that the affidavits of Gloria Sykes, Scott Evans et al verify every statement that either Denison or yours truly makes concerning these cases.     In the Alice Gore case, which does not appear to part of the original charges the offending Guardian ad Litem was accused by the Florida Attorney General of fraud – she was noted to have filed a claim as an heir to an estate that she was a stranger.  (See Probate Sharks blog).    Her benefactor, a large nursing home operator, has been fined by the USA and others for various Medicare, Medicaid **** frauds.   The Gore Estate is reported to have extreme irregularities attorned to by the presiding judge****    The Holocaust becomes quite relevant to the Gore case as it was disclosed that the avarice of the judicial officials including prospecting his Mrs. Gore’s mouth for the gold in her teeth.     Naturally, Mr. Larkin could find nothing amiss with the collecting of gold from the teeth of elder cleansing victims.
[2] As Illinois is on the verge of Bankruptcy and the legislature want to increase the taxpayer burden, it is now quite appropriate to collect from each of the miscreants their joint and several liability.   It is my supposition that each of the lawyer defendants is guilty of not reporting the tax liability on his/her 1040 Tax return.    Had they done so *****.
[3] This will be interesting as the Clerk of the Circuit Court has admitted that she did not even have such a form printed at the time of the Mary Sykes scenario was unfolding.    The form summons thus had to be specifically drafted by the attorney representing the petitioner.    It does appear that the wrong form summons were presented to the Sheriff of Cook County.    These summons were not served because Mary was not a resident of Cook County – she had been abducted and removed to DuPage County.    This bit of legerdemain suggested FRAUD was evident on day one. 
[4] The Sheriff of Cook County wrote a letter denying any return of summons, however, Mr. Schmiedel claims a bench service.      He does not claim that the 755 ILCS 5/11a – 10 form summons was ever served, nor has he claimed that the procedure required as followed.
[5] No prior notice has ever been claimed to have been given to Gloria Sykes (daughter), or two either of the two sisters of Mary.     Even the kangaroo panel could not ‘find’ that notice was given, they instead said that the two sister had knowledge of some hearing.
[6] Interestingly Adam Stern wrote to Gloria Sykes an e-mail in which he disclosed that no such hearing had been had.   The incompetency was determined by the two guardian ad litem meeting with the Attorney for the petitioner and the judge signing the order presented.    If the e-mail is accurate, a key element of due process is missing (along with notice) and the proceedings are so tainted that gross criminal conduct has occurred in the Circuit Court of Cook County and not only must the offending judges be removed from office, but they are the attorneys attorning to such procedures must be subjected to serious disciplinary proceedings that include disbarment.    Contrary to Mr. Larkin’s assertion – this offense against the Constitution of the State of Illinois and the United States of America is so obscene as to warrant criminal prosecution of the offending attorneys.    Each of the attorneys and each of the judges involved knew of should have known that 18 USCA 241, 242  and 42 USCA 1983 were openly and notoriously violated.        This lack of propriety coupled with the theft of a million dollars in Gold Coins (see Gloria Sykes affidavit on file in both the Ditkowsky and Denison disciplinary files) suggests some additional felonies!     Exactly how the IARDC can ignore Ms. Sykes’ affidavit and the lack of due process is a mystery that suggest felonies galore! 
[7] The attorneys on the various panels who were not independent enough to object to the kangaroo proceedings in the Denison and Ditkowsky proceedings are not being given a pass –  they also are co-conspirators and wrongdoers as they rubber-stamped the cover=up in the Sykes case.     Attorneys take an oath to uphold the Constitution.    Upholding the constitution is not consistent with attempting to silence the exposure of judicial (or political) corruption.