From Ken Ditkowsky–Back to Basics

Getting down to basics
Basics
The ‘fix’ is one of the dreaded dreams that every litigant endures.     Every day we are confronted with the realization that in many venues a level playing field just does not exist.    We all know about the political arena and how bias media coverage can render one candidate toast and the other a hero regardless of the facts and we all have experience business transactions that a competitor has a finger on the scale.   It certainly does not hurt to be the customer’s prospective son-in-law.    In the legal venue, we all heard about the Chicago Judge who was reputed to have a ‘cash register’ on the bench so that he could keep track of the bribes.
 
Believe it not, several of my friends actually took a trip downtown to see if in fact Judge **** actually did have a cash register on the bench.     As litigant appearing before the judge they were not surprised however to find out that to obtain justice you had to 1) hire the right lawyer, and 2) negotiate a fair price.    (This prior to Greylord!).     Leading up to Greylord the dishonest judges (not all the judges were dishonest) were confident that they were above the law, but prices were reasonable.     After Greylord the price range was augmented to all that the trade will bear and the ‘cost’ charged by the Democratic Party of Illinois to be slated for Judge went up in price quite dramatically.      (Being slated as a Democrat is practically automatic).
 
Chicago business people and Chicago lawyers learn to live with bribery as a fact of life.    Fortunately, most cases are tried on a level playing field and most lawyers refuse to participate in the process.    If both lawyers refuse to pay off the judge the judge must decide sans pecuniary consideration.    Lawyers refusing to participate in the extra undisclosed compensating of judges are aided and abetted by clients who demand honesty from their legal representatives.      Often therefore hearings and trials are conducted on the square rather than as bidding wars.
Recognizing a Fixed proceeding
Certain law firms are specialists in ‘fixing cases.’      If they appear as your opponent you now that most probably the case is fixed and you are going to lose.      In addition, in certain administrative hearings where the Administration hires the Administrative Law Judge expect that a strong bias will exist that is not in your favor.     Expect that a Judge who over-rules the agency is not going to get too many assignments.     Examples are the Department of Labor, EPA, etc.     Securities litigation panels also tend to be packed with arbitrators who think that every complaining investor is exhibiting sour grapes.      The Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary commission has demonstrated not only a tendency toward Jim Crow, but an organ designed to protect the corrupt judges, lawyers, and others who have no respect for the Rule of Law.   
 
The Disciplinary proceeding is a textbook example of just how perverted a legal proceeding can become.     By law the burden of proof imposed upon the disciplinarian is CLEAR AND CONVINCING.    This is the highest burden placed upon anyone in a civil proceeding.     It is the functional equivalent of the criminal burden of BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.       The burden of proof goes to every element of the claim, is not generalized.     Thus, the fact that the respondent might have a terrible reputation, be a murderer, a serial rapist, etc. is not relevant.     A recognized ethical violation must be proven.    
 
Thus, we know that Jerome Larkin has some relationship with some less than nice people, but, in accusing him of being paid off the IARDC has to prove all fact related to the charge.    The failure to name the person who paid him off, when this occurred and the amount of the payoff would render the charge unprovable by clear and convincing evidence; however, under the concept of preponderance of the evidence the unexplainable substantial increase in Mr. Larkin’s net worth and his relationship with a miscreant individual with a history for such nefarious conduct might meet the standard.     A provable relationship with a nursing home operator with a reputation might meet the bill, to wit:
 
This guilt by association is not enough to convict in the criminal court or by clear and convincing evidence without more.
 
 
Thus, when I was charged by the IARDC based upon the letter of Guardian ad Litem Cynthia Farenga complaining of an article on the blog Probate Sharks in which JoAnne Denison and I reiterated our demand for an HONEST INVESTIGATION I had a hint that I was going to be railroaded.      The hint was reinforced when I subpoenaed the file IN RE MARY SYKES 09 P 4585  upon which all the verified allegations of Jerome Larkin were based and the subpoena was quashed.    When Judge Connors’ deposition was taken by the IARDC and on page 91 she admitted to being wired and the proceedings were not quashed sua sponte by the commission I knew the result of any hearing.      I had the chance of a snowball in HELL!     
 
The fact of the fix was reinforced when a IARDC attorney actually asked me if I was repentant for my totally proper FIRST AMENDMENT protected letter to the Attorney General of the United States requesting an HONEST INVESTIGATION of the elder cleansing felonies associated with the Mary Sykes case.      In that letter, I outline crimes that included kidnapping, theft by a fiduciary of a million dollars in gold coins etc.      The fix included the lawyers who constituted the hearing panel as even a pre-teen is aware that the questioning was outrageously improper.     Not one of the lawyers constituting the panel was the least bit interested as to why Mr. Larkin, the Illinois Supreme Court and the IARDC thought that there was something wrong with a citizen complying with 18 USCA 4, or an attorney complying with lawyer Rule 8.3 and the Himmel case.     Of course, no one was interested in such details as how it was that:
A.      The required summons required to obtain jurisdiction over Mary Sykes (755 ILCS 5/11a – 10) was not served or the Sheriff of Cook County wrote a letter wherein he admitted that his office had not served any summons.    (This is required for jurisdiction to attach) and for the most basic of Mr. Larkin’s sworn affidavit allegation to have any credence.     (The first requirement for a judge is to ascertain if he/she has jurisdiction and thus before I could be accused of defaming a judge that judge would have to have jurisdiction) [1]
 
B.      As the Sykes case was in competency case the legislature recognized the Americans With Disabilities Act and the Constitutional limitations of this parens patrie jurisdiction. [2]    Thus, two requirements are imposed, to wit:
 
a.      Notice to all next of kin prior to hearing 755 ILCS 5/11a – 10.    This is jurisdictional
b.      Hearing to ascertain the extent and nature of the claimed incompetency 755 ILCS 5/11a -b, and 755 ILCS 5/11a – 10.
             Of course, the filed in Sykes reveals that there was NO NOTICE GIVEN TO EITHER THE NEXT OF KIN   or anyone else.    INDEED, THERE WAS NO HEARING HELD.
 
Judge Connors in August 2009 several months after the case was filed was made aware that Mary Sykes’ treating physician refused to sign a form specifying that Mary Sykes was incompetent and in her presence on the guardian ad litem steered the Petitioner to a doctor who had been co-operative in the past.    Thus, Judge Connor’s admission on page 91 or her evidence deposition and the refusal to provide the Court file which would have disclosed this perfidy made in abundantly clear that the ‘fix’ was in and the trier of fact was “wired!”
 
Every litigant who must deal with such a situation faces not only frustration but despair!     How can it be that no one cares what the facts are and I am going to be railroaded?    Indeed, it was bad enough when I played baseball and the umpire called me out on a strike that was marginable, but, herein we are addressing not only my life, but the lives of my brethren and more importantly the Citizens who depend upon the legal (Justice) system for access to the principles of “America”
 
The ramifications gets more serious when the Appellate process is also tainted.    Here you as a litigant have no contact and no warning that the ‘fix’ is in.     The Appellate process is usually more formal and there are three judges all of who have to be addressed for a fix to occur.       The typical litigant and his attorney are more confident of a just result; however, in certain proceedings (especially in Illinois) such hope is an illusion.       The IARDC disciplinary commission proceeding proves the point.
 
The fraud of the hearing commission was obvious and a child required to take the Constitution test would have recognized it on the first go around.      A major tenet of American jurisprudence and the RULE OF LAW is the fact that the Bill of Rights embodies the core values of America.     Forget about the fact that the IARDC without a scintilla of evidence was able to meet it burden of proof of clear and convincing evidence.    Forget about the fact that there was no service of summons on Mary Sykes, no prior notice of any hearing, and Judge Connors ignored all the criteria of jurisdiction.     Forget also about the fact that the complaint of the IARDC was protected not only by Rule, but by Statute and both the Illinois and Federal Constitutions.
 
The most serious aspect of this cover-up was the fact that I was complaining that DUE PROCESS of a citizen was being violated by allegedly corrupt guardian ad litem (2 of them), various attorneys, and a judge of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.    The file in the Sykes case revealed that there was NO HEARING ON THE SUBJECT TO THE EXTENT AND NATURE OF ANY INCOMPETENCY OF MARY SYKES!
 
Without a hearing, there was NO DUE PROCESS and a series of FELONIES had been committed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.    Pursuant to 18 USCA 4, Rule 8.3, and my duty as a citizen I had an absolute obligation notify the authorities of this criminal conduct.    I did, demanded an HONEST INVESTIGATION and even though every fact is verifiable by quick reference to the Court file not only was the full weight of the Illinois Supreme Court brought to bear on me to try and shut me up, but Attorney JoAnne Denison was also similarly affected.
 
The fix was in and complete.    My Civil rights (and Ms. Denison’s) were violated.   Mary Sykes’ humanity was snatched from her as she was elder cleansed.    Mary’s family suffered devastating losses that are not fully compensable ever and America was pillaged and humiliated by the miscreants.     Every lawyer who participated in this outrage is a disgrace to the profession and should be disbarred; however, the fix is in and so far has been successful.
Addressing the Fix   What does the victim of a fix do?
Most of the time the victim can do nothing!     This fact is sad but true.      In my own situation, I engaged counsel in the vain hope that he could address the situation.    That did not work.     I also proceeded to take full advantage of the Appellate process even to the extent of filing a Petition for Cert to the United States Supreme Court.    The Petition was rejected.      In addition, I wrote protest notes, and then embarked upon a campaign of letter writing to everyone in sight in an effort to call attention to the vicious criminal scheme that was being perpetrated by a group of health care fraud specialists and being covered up by judicial criminals.     I singled out a key public figure actor in the criminal enterprise who was the lynch pin of protecting the criminals and set out to attempt to make him famous.
 
Indeed, I written to every law enforcement agency I’ve ever heard of, and every organization that claims to be interested in Justice, the Rights of the elderly, humanity, etc.      I’m made myself available to appear before groups, television and other audiences etc.    I’ve given information to every law enforcement agency possible and even shown how the State and Federal Taxing authorities can profit by being diligent in law enforcement.      I’ve pointed out that the Federal Conspiracy standard is 18 USCA 371 and further pointed out that all conspirators have joint and several liabilities.   Thus, when Jerome Larkin filed his totally false disciplinary complaint against JoAnne he did an overt act pursuant to the conspiracy.  Ditto re: his complaint against me, his Jim Crow action against Diane Nash, his disrespect and negative abusive conduct toward Gloria Sykes, *******.    Thus, he owes jointly and severally the taxes, interest and penalties due regarding all the matters he has ‘covered up’ directly and indirectly.    In a similar manner, each of the crooked attorneys who participated in Larkin’s panels etc.    It should be noted that the State of Illinois is on the verge of bankruptcy — the billions of dollars stolen in the Elder Cleansing scandal all have generated liabilities (jointly and severally) in each and every participant as relates to the scandal.
 
Indeed, you and I will both continue, as long as the Stars and Stripes wave over America to fight for the rights of all citizens including the elderly and the disabled and law enforcement will hear from us as often we are able to contact them to demand an HONEST INVESTIGATION.
 
The foregoing is old hat!       There is no reason why every aggrieved person cannot engage and attorney and joint in a RICO action naming every single criminal enterprise and activity that has falls into the category of ELDER CLEANSING and in which Jerome Larkin and his cronies at the IARDC has had a hand in.    Each transaction is a separate criminal activity.    For instance, the Sykes case leaves no doubt as to Larkin’s miscreant promulgation of predicate acts directed to the false imprisonment (kidnapping), theft, violation of civil rights, mail fraud, wire fraud is obvious.   The proof is demonstrated by the Court file and the evidence deposition of Judge Maureen Connors.     The Alice Gore case is a similar example wherein Ms. Gore was deprived of her human rights by the criminal enterprise of the IARDC’s use of the mails and the telephone.    The Carol Wyman cover up ********. [3]
The law is very clear.    A fiduciary cannot profit at the expense of his ward.    Stealing a million dollars in gold coins is clearly a breach of fiduciary relationship.   (see Gloria Sykes affidavit) The cover-up is an overt act.     The stealing of 1.5 million dollars in the Gore estate is clearly a breach of fiduciary relationship.    Each of the people reading this knows of a similar cover up.      The conspirators owe the Estates not only the money stolen back, but attorney fees.    As this was an organized conspiracy RICO applies to each grouping of elder cleansing cases.     (RICO provides for triple damages! And the conspiracy makes the liability joint and several).      A fiduciary cannot profit at the expense of the ward, and a fiduciary is entitled to compensation only for the services that are necessary and proper.    As Mary Sykes was not incompetent (as there was no hearing to determine her competency as required by Law, we have a massive damage situation.     Ditto for most all of the elder cleansing cases. [4]
 
In Illinois, we have a case in which the guardian (an attorney) was urged by the family of the incompetent not to rent or sell the incumbent’s home.     They felt that not having the home immediately available for mother to come back to or stay the night might be detrimental to the ward.    The guardian attorned.     When the ward died, the executor claimed that the guardian had an unequivocal duty to protect the estate and by not leasing the home he injured the Estate.    The Judge agreed and my client was surcharged for his   kindness.    The appeal was unsuccessful.   There are several later cases concurring.        
 
We have the facts and the law on our side.     Is every civic organization and every attorney intimidated by the Criminal Conspiracy?      It is time for us to organize and defeat the WAR UPON THE ELDERLY AND THE DISABLED.
 
The shoe is now on our collective foot!      Are we all talk or are we prepared to organize and demand Justice.     We all would rather Law Enforcement and particularly the United States Attorney take the lead in this fight, but every day Jerome Larkin and his co-conspirators laugh at us and consider us a COMMODITY!       
 


[1] If I accused the Judge of having sexual relations with his/her neighbor’s dog such would not fall within the preview of the IARDC.    My crime was calling for an HONEST INVESTIGATION and Mr. Larkin interpreted that call to be an affront to the Judge and the two-guardian ad litem.
[2] An incompetency proceeding is by necessity an invasion into the privacy of citizen and therefore under law the intrusion must be minimal.     It would be unconscionable for a citizen to lose all his friends and vested rights just because he had minor deficiency.    Citizenship is not supposed to be that frail!     Thus 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3b spells out exactly what are the limits of a guardianship.   The ADA also spells these limitations.     To make certain that a citizen is not railroaded into a guardianship timely notice is required to each of the ‘next of kin’ so that they can render their objections.     The burden of proof is placed upon the petitioner for guardianship to prove each element of his/her claim by clear and convincing evidence.

[3] What Is Breach of Fiduciary Duty in Illinois?

Posted on Aug 24, 2013 by attorney  Robert Cohen
“Breach of fiduciary duty” is a catch-all phrase the law uses to describe when a trusted person — a “fiduciary” — commits a wrong against the person who trusted him or her. That usually (but far from always) means in plain English that someone took money or property entrusted to that person. It is somewhat related to common law fraud.
So, the simplest breach of fiduciary duty to describe would be a breach by a trustee of a trust. Almost anything a trustee does wrong with regard the the trust could be considered a “breach of fiduciary duty.” Some of these things require little in the way of explanation. If the trustee steals money from the trust, that is a breach of fiduciary duty.
Suppose, instead, that the trustee invests the money is a stock, and loses money. That may not be a breach, if he was allowed to invest in stocks and just made an honest bad choice. But, in many trusts it will be against the trust rules to invest in stocks. So, the investment is a breach of fiduciary duty. In fact, the trustee has breached the duty the second he made the improper investment, even if he did not lose any money. Whether that wrongful act can result in a lawsuit, though, is another issue.
Before looking at the question of whether a person can be sued, a short summary of the other “fiduciaries” in day to day lives is appropriate:
1. Attorneys
2. Employees
3. Real estate brokers
4. Partners
5. Agents
6. Guardians
Also, as a general rule, any person who is in a special relationship of trust may be considered a fiduciary. Some accountants fill this role, or any person taking care of a sick, dependent person. The law leaves this pretty much open to interpretation.
Note, oddly, a few seeming “fiduciaries” who are not typically considered fiduciaries, at least under Illinois law:
Insurance companies (unless they are holding money in trust)
Bankers
Insurance brokers
The principle behind excluding bankers and insurers seems to be that they are adequately regulated when dealing with the day-to-day affairs of their business. Insurance broker liability has been limited by statute, but brokers remain liable as “fiduciaries” if they take money in trust.
So how does one “breach” a fiduciary duty? Many ways:
Lawyers   are in breach in almost every situation that would be considered malpractice, although that imposes no different punishment than malpractice itself. Any time a lawyer misappropriates a client’s money, that too constitutes breach of fiduciary duty and grounds for disbarment.
[4] As Jerome Larkin, the IARDC, the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois and most of the co-conspirators have been using their power over the corrupt Court system to prevent the victims to obtain counsel or a remedy – Ergo, pursuant to Article 1 Section 12 of the Illinois Constitution of 1970 (and similar Constitutions) the Statute of Limitations is tolled and every claim is proper and timely!

From: kenneth ditkowsky <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>

Sent: Saturday, April 8, 2017 8:50 AM
Subject: The need for an HONEST INVESTIGATION

It has been my credo to point out that no one has to believe a single word that I utter.    In fact they should take everything with a grain of salt.   All I have ever asked for is an HONEST INVESTIGATION!   
 
The resistance to an Honest investigation is amazing.  The agencies that are paid quite handsomely to protect public = such as the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission treat the call for an HONEST INVESTIGATION as if were a call to attend a Klu Klux Klan lynching.    (Of course, after the mistreatment of Lanre Amu and the discourtesy afforded  Diane Nash I have not doubt they have good reason for being resistant).    
 
Our President has vowed to drain the swamp!   A good start would be to pull the plug on the criminals who wear black robes and those who provide 18 USCA 371 support for them.     
Ken Ditkowsky
Advertisements

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s