This week the Ill. Supreme Court clearly has told the IARDC it does not have unlimited jurisdiction over all complaints filed with it. In the past, the IARDC has filed weak complaints, groundless complaints, conjecture and hearsay against many, many attorneys and ignored complaints from the likes of Sykes, Gore, Taylor, Bedin, etc–all cases lacking jurisdiction and/or funds from inventories and accountings.
What the IARDC was formed to do was ferret out the type of corruption found in Greylord, and that should be their continuing mission–stopping and educating attorneys they cannot engage in greed, favoritism, bribes, cronnyism, etc.
Somewhere, they went off track chasing the easy stuff–ambulance chasers (those contacting a client before the client contacts the attorney first), misleading ads that don’t say “advertising” on the envelope, etc.–violations which are laid out in the Code of Ethics for Attorneys.
Then they discipline Ken Ditkowsky for merely conducting a Rule 11 investigation into whether he will represent a potential client–Mary G Sykes, and for publishing his numerous faxes, emails and letters to the authorities asking for an investigation in that case–one clearly without jurisdiction.
They come after me for blogging–all the while admitting my blog consists of non commercial political speech–something clearly prohibited under the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution and Articles of the Illinois Constitution. They say I can’t use SLAPP (an expedited hearing for instances in which political speech is involved but a plaintiff is trying to use the courts wrongfully to silence political speech by claiming defamation), and I now believe the reason they didn’t go there is because they don’t have to — the Karavidas decision makes this clear.
Perhaps the Ill. Supreme Court has made it clear. For the IARDC to discipline THE CONDUCT MUST BE SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITED BY THE CODE OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT and the charges must be specific so as to avoid claims that due process was violated.
The ARDC has none of that against myself or Ken, but to date continues to prosecute and persecute us. In addition, they have clearly copied hundreds of pages of my copyrighted blog–another shameful action by the IARDC.
Finally, the agency has no transparency or accountability like other state agencies. They claim they are a private enterprise only subject to the Ill. Supreme Ct., but their lack of transparency and accountability like other state agencies wears thin on the public and their confidence when grievances against “favored” attorneys are ignored (lack of jurisdiction, assets falling off of inventories with impunity, and other actions), while the IARDC goes after private emails of Ken Ditkowsky and my blog.
My blog is not me and I am not my blog. You, the readers ask me to publish about certain things you see in the courtroom and I do and comment on them. I ask for backup with transcripts and pleadings before I publish.
Nonetheless, that is my constitutional right. I have an opinion, you have an opinion and those opinions are put on this blog, in case someone wants to read them. Similarly, I gather facts, case law, statutory law and publish that too. The IARDC acts like it is shocked and claim “it must not be true” when miscreant judges and attys apparently are not following the law and they claim my facts and opinions are wrong, (and maybe they are sometimes), but I still have the right to gather them and publish them where I find them and where others find them.
These attorneys and judges are public figures and so I should be granted wide berth to write about them, let others write about them, criticize them, praise them, whatever, and the IARDC should not be regulating blogs. As Ken says, THEY WERE NOT GRANTED THAT AUTHORITY. They have no jurisdiction.
So along comes the Karavidas case and what does that case say? The same thing, here is the case:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6FbJzwtHocwUWdWOG02bWhGLUE/edit?usp=sharing
here are some quotes from Ken;
Key statements from Karvidas
In the context of a disciplinary proceeding where an attorney-client relationship is involved, we use the term “conversion” as a term of art and focus on the attorney’s conduct with respect to the property or funds of the client or third party, not on the circumstances that would be necessary to give rise to a claim in tort by the rightful owner. See In re Rosin, 156 Ill.2d 202, 206, 189 Ill.Dec. 400, 620 N.E.2d 368 (1993) (defining conversion in the context of a disciplinary proceeding as “any unauthorized act, which deprives a man of his property permanently or for an indefinite time,” where the property at issue was the client’s share of proceeds of a settlement (internal quotation marks omitted)). Thus, when an attorney is acting as an attorney, he may be found to have converted funds that are held in a trust account holding funds owed to numerous clients, even though his misconduct does not fit the common law definition of conversion.
In re Karavidas, 2013 IL 115767
In sum, we hold that professional discipline may be imposed only upon a showing by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent attorney has violated one or more of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Mere bad behavior that does not violate one of the Rules is insufficient.
In re Karavidas, 2013 IL 115767
We, therefore, agree with the Review Board that respondent’s conduct, because he was not acting as an attorney and he was not involved in the judicial process at the time of the breach, did not undermine the administration of justice. While an attorney’s breach of fiduciary duty owed to a nonclient could constitute an act that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, this did not occur in this case. Further, if an attorney is to be disciplined for such conduct, the Administrator must, as a matter of due process, plead and prove that the breach of fiduciary duty had a prejudicial effect on the administration of justice. To the extent that our earlier decisions state or imply otherwise, they are hereby overruled.
In re Karavidas, 2013 IL 115767
before professional discipline may be imposed under Supreme Court Rule 770, the Administrator must demonstrate that the attorney violated the Rules of Professional Conduct. To the extent that any of our prior cases suggest that an attorney may be subjected to professional discipline for conduct that is not prohibited by the Rules of Professional Conduct or defined as misconduct therein, we hereby reject such a suggestion. As a matter of due process, an attorney who is charged with misconduct and faces potential discipline must be given adequate notice of the charges, including the rule or rules he is accused of violating. Personal misconduct that falls outside the scope of the Rules of Professional Conduct may be the basis for civil liability or other adverse consequences, but will not result in professional discipline.
In re Karavidas, 2013 IL 115767
The effect of these statements is to focus Mr. Larkin and the IARDC upon the fact that each of the miscreants and each member of the staff of the IARDC – including Mr. Larkin has a duty to exercise professionalism and not go on fishing expeditions that are designed to discourage or assault the First Amendment or deny seniors of their liberty and property. In particular – in writing her ‘smoking gun’ letter Ms. Farenga was fully aware that the IARDC had no authority to stop either JoAnne Denison or myself from exercising our First Amendment Rights. Similarly staff attorney and attorney for Mr. Larkin was also aware when he brought the disciplinary proceeding that the IARDC had no authority (and no jurisdiction) to attempt to impede, discourage, or interfere with my communication with NASGA, Probate Sharks, Attorney General Holder etc.
At all times relevant Farenga was acting in her professional capacity of an attorney and guardian ad litem. IT IS CERTAINLY UNETHICAL FOR AN ATTORNEY TO IN THE COURSE OF HIS/HER ENGAGEMENT TO VIOLATE 42 USCA 1983! Why did Mr. Larkin not prosecute Ms. Farenga and/or Ms. Black?
Similar situations exist in relation to the actions of Mr. Larkin, the staff attorneys of the IARDC and Mr. Schmiedel, Mr. Stern and the other miscreants! The isolation and continued elder abuse of Mary Sykes similarly is unprofessional, incurs as part of the Court proceedings and it also remains uninvestigated and unpunished. Indeed, it is now Thanksgiving 2013 and Mary has been kept prisoner for four years! Why has Mr. Larkin the IARDC not acted on Citizen complaints (and in particular the complaints filed by Gloria Sykes) as to this assault on the Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments by attorney miscreants acting in violation of 42 USCA 1983? Why has staff attorney’s been given a pass as to unprofessional conduct that they have demonstrated. (In particular the letter claiming that Stern was Gloria’s GAL which 17 days later became a typo!).
Anyhow – my Petition to dismiss is being filed as this e-mail is being sent. I drafted a Petition for you the mirrors mine. It should also be filed. It is my hope that with no more scapegoats Mr. Larkin and the IARDC will request law enforcement including the States Attorney and the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois to do an HONEST complete and comprehensive investigation of this entire Elder Cleansing scandal. (This is a National fiasco of epic proportions! The Income taxes generated from these breaches of Fiduciary relationships is incredible.) [Carolyn T at this point in relation to the gold coins removed from the safety deposit box and not inventoried owes Income taxes at 30%, a Fraud penalty of 50% and 25% per year in interest. I am assuming that she did not disclose on her 2009 United States Income tax the unauthorized removal of Gloria Sykes and Mary Sykes’ gold coins from their safety deposit box. – as a side, I notice that once again Gloria’s attempts to obtain the signature cards and other information as to her safety deposit box have been thwarted! I am hoping that Mr. HOlder will send the IRS to secure these records! The breach of fiduciary relationship is a taxable event!]
Ken Ditkowsky
www.ditkowskylawoffice.com
MaryGSykes.com 