CLICK HERE for ARDC (infamous) Blogging about Corruption case


You will be able to follow the ARDC case against me right on this web page.

Link to Case directory:

For Ditkowsky and Denison vs. Jerome Larkin, et al. and our civil rights complaint:

For Copyright infringement suit (Denison v. IARDC) click here:

This blog promises transparency and accountability, unlike the IARDC!

I promise to publish the complaint, motions, transcripts and whatever else is done or published.

Let’s see if public pressure can bear on the probate cases without jurisdiction that MUST be investigated, and the ARDC complaint MUST BE DISMISSED for relating tales and pleadings of corruption in the Illinois Court System.

If you disagree with the ARDC and believe that the Illinois State Courts and/or the Cook County Court does NOT enjoy a good or favorable reputation in the community, you can fax the director Jerome Larkin at 312-565-2320 or write him at:

Atty Jerome Larkin, ARDC Administrator, and

Attys Haspel and Opryczek, prosecuting attorneys

One Prudential Plaza

130 E Randolph Dr, #1500

Chicago, IL 60601

Please  reference my complaint No. 2013 PR 00001

Also write the Supreme Court of Illinois

Chief Judge: Thomas L Kilbride

200 E Capitol Ave

Springfield, IL
(217) 782-7821


ACLU of Illinois

Executive Director: Colleen K. Connell

180 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 2300
Chicago, IL 60601

Phone: (312) 201-9740 Fax: 312-201-9760 | Email:


Link to the complaint:

2013 PR 00001 Complaint against JMD for Blogging

Motion to Dismiss from Ken Ditkowsky

Letter to Leah Black

Interrogatories to the ARDC

Requests for Admission to ARDC

Requests for Documents to ARDC

Motion to Disqualify Atty Ken Ditkowsky and Response thereto

Petition under Rule 383 for a Supervisory Order to Ill. Supreme Ct.

Deposition of Gloria Sykes 

Deposition of Scott Evans

Deposition of Kathie Bakken

Deposition of Yolanda Bakken

More to come!

Here is my entire Google Directory on the entire case:

I challenge the IARDC to put up their entire directory!

I am probably going to take down the above now that we have the record from the ARDC

Here are there answers to KDD’s discovery requests:

Notes you can find at p91, 129, 140, 144, 209, 215, 220, 290, 292.




the Record from the ARDC:

Tribunal Record pp1 to end

The Transcripts from Hearing days 1 to 4

5 thoughts on “CLICK HERE for ARDC (infamous) Blogging about Corruption case

  1. Pingback: Guardianship: 'A Crime Against Humanity' - Dr. Rich Swier

  2. It’s not copyright infringement when disciplinary committees reference your blog. This falls under fair use. This is no different than Bond V. Blum, when a murderer attempted to suppress the legislative introduction of his confession manuscript on the basis of copyright law. How, pray tell, would the disciplinary committee’s use of your work cause damages or affect value?

    Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:
    the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
    the nature of the copyrighted work;
    the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
    the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
    The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

    • I disagree. they did not have one or two or three copies, I saw dozens of them. Further,they displayed the entire blog, which they did not use 95 percent of it. In addition, it turns out the court reporter had not been licensed and Illinois law says that if the court reporter for the trial isn’t licensed, then the judgment is invalid and she can’t charge. The Illinois Supreme court nonetheless declared the judgment valid and the state paid an unlicensed court reporter over $10k. how do you explain all of tht.

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