From Ken Ditkowsky–Who checks the fact checkers and why do we need any panels of “fact checkers” in Illinois anyway?

The establishment has a new tool in which to distort the facts – it is called the fact check.    In the elder cleansing arena the fact check is created by “panels” of lawyers who are “wired” and predetermined to find that any deviation from the accepted ‘tale’ is a lie.   Thus, when confronted by the fact that Mary Sykes was openly and notoriously deprived of her civil and human rights by a corrupt judge (who on page 91 of her evidence deposition admitted her corrupt conduct) and a group of pernicious lawyers who were engaged in the nitty gritty of elder cleansing – the call for an HONEST INVESTIGATION had to be confronted.   It was by calling a fact that every one knew not to be fact as the gospel!    This gospel by Jerome Larkin was then given a complete white wash.   Unfortunately, this white wash continues with the criminal enterprise scrambling to obfuscate the facts.
Today’s Washington Post reveals there was a cover-up (i.e. the Chemical weapons brag that was fact checked and found true and now being pointed out as not very true) as an embarrassment that is not going away quietly even with the full court press writing articles on the use of chemical weapons. (From Joanne, I don’t even understand why these manufacturers of chemical weapons are not hunted down and imprisoned, but that’s another article.  You can never, every harm another human being intentionally, or you will be responsible for them and making up the harm and the long you wait, the more debt is due, tyvm Ms. Karma).
Obfuscation and double talk are the meat and potatoes of the ESTABLISHMENT.
It is time for an Honest Investigation of the ELDER CLEANSING scandal and especially the cover-up in violation of 18 USCA 371 engaged in by the lawyer disciplinary commission (such as the Illinois attorney Registration and Disciplinary commission) and the Stat Supreme Court.
We cannot and will not do anything about the lies that our National Government told us but we are the target of the criminals in black robes and the predators who have the elderly (potentially you and me) in their sights.    These people have no conscience and qualms or fear.     Need an example!   Illinois is no the verge of BANKRUPTCY and looking desperately for funds.   The Illinois Department of Revenue appears to have no interest in collecting the taxes that Jerome Larkin owes jointly and severally because of the overt actions that he took and is still taking in pursuance of the thefts from the Estate of Gore, Tyler, Sykes, Wyman ****
The State of Illinois could be collecting taxes on the criminal income of $3 million Sykes, $9 million Lydia Tyler, $1.5 million Alice Gore, the value of a small home in Rockford for Carol Wyman,  but for someone reason it refuses so we have $110 billion in unfunded state pensions and $8 billion in current debts we cannot pay.  The Illinois Health Fund is meager and cannot provide free health care for all Illinois citizens because it is repeatedly raped by the fraudsters in health care (Seth Gillman $100 million over 5 years with fake hospice claims).
SR is an angel and a candidate for sainthood compared with the violators of the public trust in our judicial establishment in Illinois and in many of the other States of the United States of America!    IT IS TIME TO FISH OR GET OFF THE POT!

From: kenneth ditkowsky <>

Sent: Monday, April 10, 2017 10:02 AM
Subject: Re: LOOK NOW April 9 2017 Today on Full Measure TV on Guardian Abuse Pass it to more people hurry

It is time to take a look at:
Dr. Sugar has laid out the problem, and the cause for all to see.    The time to act is now!    The moron in North Korea and the idiots in Syria are threats to others, however, the miscreants portrayed at , AAAPG – Educate – Advocate – Legislate
Probate Sharks, MaryGSykes, NASGA et al are more than potentially targeting you and me – everywhere you turn they are having a profound effect on our daily lives. The high cost of health care and its 700% surcharge should not be lost in the shuffle.    The corruption in our courts is aided and abetted by the profitability of this corruption and the fact that the booty is given immunity from taxation.
Three million dollars stolen from an estate escaped all taxation in the Mary Sykes case.   One million five hundred thousand dollars escaped taxation in the Alice Gore case ******.  Eight million escaped taxation in the Tyler case and the list continues.    In fact the criminal enterprise is so profitable that Lawyer Disciplinary Commissions such as the Illinois attorney registration and disciplinary commission are devoting hundreds of hours protecting dishonest lawyers and judges from the victim public!
All that we have ever asked the Establishment for was an HONEST INVESTIGATION!   We have a better chance of having the butcher of Syria or the monster of North Korea give a positive response than we have in getting an honest shake from the 18 USCA 371 breachers of the public trust!

From: kenneth ditkowsky <>
To: kev pizza <>
Cc: Probate Sharks <>; 
Sent: Sunday, April 9, 2017 4:39 PM
Subject: Re: LOOK NOW April 9 2017 Today on Full Measure TV on Guardian Abuse Pass it to more people hurry

let us define terms.


A judge determines if a litigant has met the standard of proof.   It is up to the petitioner to present evidence that proves by a preponderance of the evidence that a particular individual is incompetent and the extent and nature thereof.    If the petitioner has not met the standard of proof (clear and convincing in the case of an alleged disabled person) the judge has only one responsibility – DISMISS THE PETITION.


A wired or fixed  judge is one who is induced by some non-relevant incentive= such as money, friendship, promises et al to render a decision that the petitioner has met a standard of proof which the aforesaid petition has not done so.   


An Incompetent judge  is a judge who is biased or does not have the capacity to make an HONEST determination if the standard of proof has been presented.   An incompetent judge is not venal – however, the questioning of just how such a judge reached the bench.


The distinctions are important.    The guardianship appointment is necessary in many cases – not the hundreds of thousands in which it is being used for elder cleansing and unjust enrichment of certain criminal health care providers/   An easy test of competency is to ask three questions:


1) Do you know the objects of your bounty?
2) Do you know the extent and nature of your property?
3) can you plan and execute a simple business transaction. 

Thus, if Mary Sykes knew that her husband had died and she had two daughters surviving – she met the test criteria 1.   (Mary met this test when she filled out a Petition for a Protective order against her older daughter (who also was appointed her plenary guardian as the Petition for a Protective order was hidden).     Mary met test 2 with color’s flying when she on her own ascertained correctly that her older daughter had stolen several thousand dollars from her.    She met test 3 when she figured out how to obtain a Petition for an order of Protection and also when she personally did her own banking.


As the standard is so high – due to the Constitutional protections of both the State and Federal Jurisdiction – Judge Maureen Connor’s culpability is also noted from the Common Law Record (court file) as not only did she shirk her basic responsibility by ignoring these facts and by allowing one of the guardian ad litem to recommend a doctor who had no qualms about perjury and open and notorious violation of Civil Rights.    This subordination of perjury should be noted in the August 2009 Transcript of Proceedings in case 09 P 4585.    (Obviously – Jerome Larkin knew or should have known of this intentional violation of Mary Sykes’ Constitutional Rights – and his overt act of trying to intimidate both JoAnne Denison and I not to call this perfidy, fraud and clearly wrongful behavior  to the attention of Law Enforcement)

If Mary knew that she had a Bank account, a Safety deposit Box, owned her own home, etc – she met the test criteria 2.

Ken Ditkowsky

From: kev pizza <>
To: kenneth ditkowsky <>
Sent: Sunday, April 9, 2017 1:52 PM
Subject: Re: LOOK NOW April 9 2017 Today on Full Measure TV on Guardian Abuse Pass it to more people hurry

Ken – a judge is not qualified to diagnose ‘capacity’, nor is he/she have the authority to do so.
Add another ‘wired’ Judge to the list.

From: kenneth ditkowsky <>
Sent: Sunday, April 9, 2017 5:05 PM
To: ginny johnson
Subject: Re: LOOK NOW April 9 2017 Today on Full Measure TV on Guardian Abuse Pass it to more people hurry
This is the possible future for every senior!
Under ADA, the judge is required to inquire as to whether or not the Petitioner could hear what was going on in the proceedings.   In addition, a Medical professional should be called upon to address the situation of the extent of any disability.    Judicial proceedings that are honest (intellectually honest) attempt to ascertain the truth.   People have a right to have different opinion, but THIS IS A SEARCH FOR HONEST OBJECTIVITY!    
The proof of incompetency must be   Clear and Convincing
Now let us apply these facts.    If the proof presented is clear and convincing that the subject is incompetent to such and such degree and we have an honest and competent jurist the objectors by definition are unreasonable and their objection is lacking in merit.
However, if we have ‘wired judges’ or incompetent judges there is a very serious CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION that has to be remediated and arrested.
This is not fun and games – this is real life drama

From: ginny johnson <>

Sent: Sunday, April 9, 2017 9:44 AM
Subject: LOOK NOW April 9 2017 Today on Full Measure TV on Guardian Abuse Pass it to more people hurry
Send this to everyone hurry its to air in 30 mins. today on TV look up “Full Measure” and find your City and the Station it will be air LOOK at the Coverage – on Guardian Abuse – and how they SCAM
Sharyl: Court-appointed guardianships for incapacitated adults can do a tremendous service protecting their assets, fielding family feuds, and making difficult decisions. But some elderly feel victimized by the very system tasked with protecting them. One estimate in 2013 found 1.5 million adults were under court-ordered guardianships controlling $273 billion in personal assets. Complaints appear to be growing but it’s impossible to know for sure because there are no reliable statistics. Our cover story looks at a family claiming the guardianship system did more to hurt than help
Sharyl: This is video of Betty Winstanley, taken last year. She’s a 95 year-old living in a Pennsylvania retirement community. When her husband died in 2014, she was left with a comfortable savings. But when her three children disagreed on whether she should manage her own affairs, Betty ended up in front of a judge. Liz and David Winstanley are two of her children and told us some of the claims they’ve outlined in court documents.
David Winstanley: She was taken to court without hearing aids…she didn’t understand or hear what was going on. After the testimony, the judge ruled her incapacitated. And ordered a third party guardianship to watch over my mother.
Sharyl: And you firmly believe your mother’s mental health is perfectly fine?
David Winstanley: Absolutely.
Sharyl: Their brother, who declined to speak with us, disagrees. And so did the court, which ordered a guardianship, meant for Betty’s own good. But the arrangement is quickly depleting her life’s savings and keeping her from moving to Maryland, closer to Liz and David. Betty’s court-appointed guardian from a for-profit company controlled virtually every aspect of Betty’s life…at Betty’s own expense.
Sharyl: What are some of the expenses that you’ve seen or that you think are exorbitant?
David Winstanley: My brother called the guardian, talked to her for some amount of time. And there’s a bill showing $900 for that phone call.
Sharyl: Your mother had to pay for that? David: Yes. Sharyl: What kind of rate does she get paid?
Liz Winstanley: She initially invoiced at $300. $300 an hour for her services. And then she had a nurse. She was charging $150 for, I believe?
Sharyl: To be clear, this is on top of the care your mom already gets?
Liz Winstanley: Exactly.
Sharyl: In assisted living, that she’s paying for?
Liz Winstanley: Yes.
Sharyl: Invoices show the guardian charged Betty. $180 for an email sent to the family on Mother’s Day. More than $400 for conversations about “ownership of a French horn.” And more than two thousand dollars to discuss Christmas visits. In one five-month period, guardian bills came to more than $93-thousand dollars. After the family complained about the $300 an hour rate, the guardian refunded about half of her fees and reduced her rate to $150 an hour. When Betty’s children challenged the guardianship, the guardians’ fees were paid from Betty’s account. Court records show in one seven-month period those legal fees added up to more than $57 thousand. We weren’t able to talk to Betty ourselves. The guardian won’t allow her to speak to the media.
Betty Winstanley: You have me here and I don’t know what you’re trying to do to me.
Sharyl: David took this video of his mom shortly after the guardianship, talking to her previous guardian’s helper.
Betty Winstanley: Why are you trying to damage my life by taking me away from all of my family and my friends?
Sharyl: Betty’s current estate guardian wouldn’t agree to an interview but issued a statement saying the company is “committed to serving the best interest of its clients” and has “a high-quality standard of practice and operates under nationally accepted guardianship regulations.” In court filings and a letter, the guardian has blamed David and Liz for running up costs by challenging their mother’s guardianship. The courts have repeatedly supported the actions of Betty’s guardians. Today, Betty lives under strict, guardian-imposed restrictions intended for her own good.
Sharyl: Can your mom leave anytime she wants?
David Winstanley: No.
Sharyl: Can your mom live where ever she wants?
David Winstanley: No.
Sharyl: Can your mom go to a doctor whenever she thinks she needs to see a doctor?
David Winstanley: No. She has to go through the guardian to get permission to do that.
Sharyl: And every time she goes to the guardian, it costs more money?
David Winstanley: Yes.
Sally Humre: Very frequently there are other sides to the story.
Sharyl: Sally Hurme is with the National Guardianship Association.
Sally: That’s why it’s important for the courts to be there to exercise their supervision and their monitoring, give both sides the opportunity to air their concerns in a court of law rather than in the media.
Sharyl: She says most guardians do a competent, caring job…some as volunteers with no pay at all.
Sally Hurme: Also, very frequently, there are branches in the family. The family dynamics can be very much a part of the dissatisfaction that we hear about sometimes in the press.
Sharyl: David and Liz estimate the guardian process cost $1.9 million from Betty’s estate in less than three years, and that she has less than $40,000 left in cash. After complaints from the family, the court recently appointed Betty’s attorney to share in guardianship decisions.
Betty Winstanley: I don’t know who to go to. I’m desperate. Do you understand how I feel?
Sharyl: Can we assume most guardianships don’t go wrong? That people are pretty happy with the outcome?
Sally Hurme: Absolutely. I think the best we know is that the great majority of guardianships are helping the individual.
Sharyl: David and Liz continue to appeal to the judge in their mother’s case. And each time they do, it costs Betty since she’s forced to pay her guardian’s legal fees.
David Winstanley: It can happen to anybody. A neighbor can report you as incapacitated and take you into a guardianship. Friends, family members– attorneys, accountants, it can happen very easily. And it happens quickly. And it’s nearly impossible to break a guardianship once it’s established, especially through a state.
Liz Winstanley: It’s one thing for us, as the children, to watch mum going through this. And it’s another for her. She is absolutely devastated that she is an “incapacitated” person.
Betty Winstanley: It’s just something that’s just unreal.
Sharyl: Just a few days ago, the court replaced Betty’s personal guardian. But there’s no word on whether the new guardian will allow her to move to Maryland now that her savings are nearly gone.

1 thought on “From Ken Ditkowsky–Who checks the fact checkers and why do we need any panels of “fact checkers” in Illinois anyway?

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 )

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