From Judy Ditkowsky–a great summary of the case from her perspective

Dear Judy;

Thanks for passing this along.  I understand before whatever the hearing board does is made final, Ken will be able to submit more argument after learning of specific findings of fact.

Thanks again, you are a great writer and don’t be shy.

JoAnne

First of all, approximately 3 years ago, the attorney for the older sister (Carolyn)  in the Sykes case, AND the “special” guardian ad litem called Ken in his office, within an hour of each other, each threatening to file a claim before the ARDC.   They threatened to have Ken brought up on charges before the Circuit Court, as they said that the Court had ruled that there was to be no further inquiry into the Sykes case.  At that time, I was in the office almost every day because of Ken’s problems with secretaries quitting and/or being sick and I was there when they called. Ken put the calls on speakerphone so I heard them. Ken was livid at this threat.

About a year to a year and a half ago, an ARDC claim was filed by the attorney for Carolyn (Peter Schmiedel), and the two guardians ad litem:  the original guardian, Cynthia Farenga and  the special guardian ad litem, Adam Stern.   When Ken continued to investigate they filed a petition in the Circuit Court for sanctions,   and Ken was eventually declared “a bad boy”.  He appealed the case,and the claim was  THROWN OUT FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION by the APPELLATE court.

After Ken won in the Appellate Court, the undeterred GALs  (guardians ad litem)  continued to press charges and filed the instant proceedings with the ARDC,  with fifteen claims that Ken lied, was deceitful and was interfering with the course of justice and that he had sent emails.  Ken had sent the emails, and of course admitted that. BUT he asked for specifics. You have taught law classes and you know that vague claims are not allowed.  During the discovery process, the attorney for the ARDC admitted that the ARDC did not have information on what Ken had lied about or how he had interfered with the administration of justice. Of course, then Ken filed a motion to have the ARDC charges disallowed for want of knowledge, clarity and specificity.  The first indication that this might not be a level ground proceeding was that Ken’s motion was denied.  So he had to defend himself against essentially unknown charges.

Once he came to the hearing, the chief hearing officer sustained every motion of the ARDC to squelch any questioning that had to do with the truth or falsity of what Ken had said, calling it “trying the underlying case”.  What was the underlying case?  Ken has not appeared for anyone in “the underlying case”.  The attorney for the ARDC administrator spent over an hour emphasizing that Ken had been sanctioned by  the ARDC, and tried to ignore the actions of the Circuit and Appellate Court on the case which the appellate court had thrown out.  By allowing this to proceed, was the hearing officer impartial?  Well, I’m not impartial either, but I don’t think it came through as something which properly should have been allowed to occur.

The hearing officer had over-ruled Ken’s objection to telephone testimony by a physician whom Ken had contacted regarding the facts of something that Ken had written to the doctor and was supposed to be in the doctor’s files.  When the telephone testimony occurred, the doctor could not find the document or the place on the document to which the ARDC attorney was referring.  (All the other witnesses had the benefit of this attorney coming over to them and showing them where to look).  Eventually, the hearing officer got so frustrated that he asked to speak to the court reporter at the doctor’s office.  The doctor’s reply was “She’s not here”.  The hearing officer let this travesty of testimony continue for several minutes before finally stating that the doctor would have to come and testify in person on Friday.  If the court reporter who had been hired by the ARDC was noton the scene and recording what was happening, how could the hearing officer hear the testimony, if this was a level field hearing?

The hearing officer had allowed two days (Thursday and Friday) for the hearing and stated firmly that that was all the time allotted. He said that both sides, the ARDC and Ken, had thought it would take only one day, and he had allotted the second day only as an emergency spillover.  Then he allowed the ARDC to put on its case until I think it was four o’clock on Friday afternoon.  Is this a level playing field?

Nevertheless, with all the obstacles presented, Ken and his attorney were able to show that the older daughter’s attorney KNEW that money which had been frozen by the court system at his request was money involved in an insurance claim in which Gloria (the younger daughter) was the only litigant: the money had NOTHING to do with the old lady.  They were able to get the “special” guardian ad litem to admit that the mother was living in Du Page county, when the statute shows that probate proceedings MUST take place in the county in which the person at risk of guardianship actually lived, which was not Cook County; that Mrs. Sykes living sisters (required specifically by the law) had never been formally notified that they had the right to be at any guardianship hearing, the mother was only told of her rights to an attorney of her choice and a six person jury in a meeting in the home of the daughter whom the mother had specifically asked for an order of protection against, by this guardian — so this did not meet the legal requirements.  No one contested the claim that Ken has voiced that the mother had been admitted to the hospital for a swallowing disorder only AFTER she had lost 10% of her body weight, nor had the guardians ad litem done anything to protect their ward’s health.  The guardian ad litem actually stated that “these things happen to these people” — ie, preventable illness in his ward is none of his duty as the “eyes and ears of the court”.    The second guardian ad litem admitted that the only time she ever saw Mrs. Sykes was when the older daughter brought her to her office in Evanston because “Naperville was too far away” and the other guardian lived closer.  That is precisely why the Statute says that the proceedings must take place in the county where the person resides.  Naperville is in Du Page county, so she knew that she was not a qualified guardian under the statute.   Ken and his attorney were able to bring in the transcript in which the first judge in the case clearly said that if the MD (the one with the telephone testimony travesty and Mary’s long time physician) would not sign the form which said that Mrs Sykes was incompetent , the guardians should find another doctor who would–i.e., go doctor shopping  And, when he cross examined the first guardian ad litem, Ken was able to get him to admit that there were two doctors who routinely sign such documents and one of them was the doctor who signed the paper for Mrs. Sykes.  Finally, Ken’s attorney, when cross-examining the Evanston guardian, got her to admit that the older daughter was allowed to drill a safety deposit box with neither guardian ad litem present, even though they had received all these emails, because they “KNEW” that the gold in the box was imaginary.  When they called Ken as an adverse witness, he had the chance to give the four reasons he had to believe that the gold was real: 1) when he drew a will for Mrs. Sykes some years ago, he had properly investigated the size and type of estate he was drawing a will for; 2) Mrs. Sykes sister had told him of the way in which at least part of it had been acquired (inheritance from a specific estate), 3) he had seen one of the coins, so he was able to describe it to coin dealers and/or look up its value in coin catalogs so that he could estimate the total value at that time of the treasure, and 4) that the person accused of having taken the gold without inventory had never denied the allegation.  Remember, he was under oath and he is supposed to be presumed innocent and therefore telling the truth.  Ken  was able to state that he had been asking for investigations by Law Enforcement of activities which did not seem to fit any definition of proper behavior, and that he had been open in all his emails so that the various complainants could not complain that he was acting behind their backs.

The only action which the ARDC attorneys took to “prove” that Ken was telling lies was having the various witnesses they call deny (of course all were under oath) that they had ever done anything illegal — but over and over and over again– clearly another time waster.  Last time I studied the matter, in the U.S., a person is innocent until proven guilty — in this level of hearing, by clear and convincing evidence.  Under oath these witnesses had admitted that they had not performed the duties required by the law, had not protected Mrs. Sykes interests, had trampled over the rights of others, all of the matters that Ken had been calling for an investigation of.  No evidence was given that anyone had ever done anything except to ask what “he said” or “she said”.  Ken’s attorney brought out that the fact that these guardians had remained active in the case for no pay was not the ordinary course of legal practice of private attorneys who have bills to pay.  Ken specified exactly how much he had been paid (very very little and only at the outset) and that he had an escrow fund that includes more that what he can possibly ever be called upon to return, and that he was acting as a concerned citizen after he had been barred from representing any party in the case… and also  because as a lawyer he is bound by an actual mandatory reporting law for questionable behavior of other lawyers or governmental officials.  This is called the Himmel rule, after an adjudication.  The behavior of the guardians’ ad Litem, the judges, the attorney for the older sister, make it clear that they believe that ONCE a malfeasance has been reported, peons cannot report it again if no investigation has been made by a third party.  This is not the clear intent of the ruling of the court which promulgated this rule, nor of the baseline statute.  Of course, in their opening statement, the ARDC attorneys had stated that Ken had raised the spector of the Greylord hearings just when the public was beginning to respect the Cook County courts after so many years.  No doubt or question about that:  most of Ken’s emails had had the word Greylord in their title!!!

Ken was under oath; having been called as an adverse witness, he was able to bring  material that had previously been disallowed to the attention of the court.  Since the order was apparently written before the hearing officers left for the day.. it was issued early on Monday, obviously, Ken’s exculpatory evidence  had clearly never been looked at — again, the presumption of innocence was ignored.  Is this a level playing field???

When the transcript is issued… and obviously, the hearing officers relied “only” on their memory of what they had heard …all of this will be part of the public record.  In the meantime, the charges against Ken have been on the internet for months and no doubt the order is there now too.

In the meantime, Ken’s attorney showed that the doctor knew that the way in which Ken had phrased his questions did not make it mandatory that he respond.  He also showed that the amount of time that the guardian ad litems and the attorney for the older daughter had spent was clearly optional on their part, as they had never sent their copies of the email to spam, formally requested of Ken that he stop copying them on the emails, or taken any action short of the ARDC to stop getting the emails.  Meanwhile the ARDC lawyers attempted to break copyright laws by putting blogs into evidence without permission of the copyright owners of the blogs.  This is one of the few things they were not allowed to do.

Interestingly, the effect of Ken’s campaign has actually allowed vulnerable people to call upon the “Sodini rule” (an appelate court case relating to the laws of guardianship which I mentioned above), get their hearings, and not be declared wards of the court without due process, have their civil liberties abrogated and the money they worked for all their lives squandered by guardians and kept from their children and grandchildren and rightful heirs.  Is this interfering with justice? which was one of the fifteen counts,  or is it interfering with nefarious activity?

Why should Ken need character witnesses?  He was not accused of stealing from the elderly!  He was accused of telling lies about public officials, and the officials under oath were forced to admit the truth of some of those accusations despite the active assistance of the chief hearing officer with the attempts of the ARDC attorneys to bar this evidence.  Over the two days, about fifteen people came in to witness the hearing, and that did not include Naomi and myself.  Those who could stayed the whole time.  One lady who came had a family member from whom nine million dollars was extracted.  In another case, I think in Colorado, a ward died under strange circumstances and her body was cremated within hours.  The General Accounting Office wrote a report last year stating that elderly abuse by state officials is endemic nationwide.  Was this a level playing field? I’m not unbiased, but I still think not.  How was the field tilted?  There has been plenty of evidence in the past few years about how such things have been done in other cases.  Is it likely that what looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, breaks bones like a duck is a duck??????

Ken is not playing dead by any means.  Exactly how he intends to go about ordering the evidence that he has been railroaded is still being decided.

Judy
From Joanne again;
Great job and wonderful observations and summary.  I only had to correct a few words and typos.  You did great and raised some wonderful questions regarding the proceeding.

My question is,  how did they spend soooo much time on soooo much testimony regarding what was or was not done in the Sykes probate case when it is clear from the record 95% of those actions occurred when the court had no jurisdiction?

Not having jurisdiction is like the accused who is convicted and spends 3 years in prison when he was never in fact arrested or tried.   So everyone talks about the incarceration for 2 days?  I don’t get that.

And it’s not like you need witnesses to prove that point.  There are 3 declarations on this website from the younger daughter and two elderly sisters of Mary attesting to the fact that they never received 14 days advanced written notice from the petitioner of the date, time and place of hearing, meaning the court actually lost jurisdiction and became a nullity on December 7, 2009.  It’s all in writing.  The records are published on this website.  3 declarations and a court order from November 18, 2009 setting the hearing date says it all.

The rest is actually history, but I don’t understand how or why the hearing board had to go any further after that.

Working without jurisdiction incurs great liability on all the attys involved in the case and the two judges.  The first judge actually sits on the Court of Appeals for the 2nd district and she could not figure out a simple case of jurisdiction?  She ran the Sykes probate court from December 7, 2009 until December 23, 2010 without jurisdiction, issuing about an order per month–and all of those orders weren’t worth the Charmin they were printed on!

I guess I don’t understand the ARDC hearing process at all.  They accuse Ken of misconduct while at the same time, there was an elephant pooing in their courtroom and they claim not to see the elephant or the mounds of elephant poo.

No one has explained the elephant and the elephant poop to me yet.
JoAnne

From Ken Ditkowsky–Happy Rosh Hashanna and a return to ethics for a new year!

Dear Readers;
While Ken was informing me of the Jewish New Year, (happy New Year), I was quipping about the year 5773 is so big it should be done in log form base 10 which means that 2012 is actually 3.03 and I forget 5773, but you all can do the math yourself (and yes, logs are actually math, not arithmetic).
Whenever someone hands me an annoying form I don’t want to fill out, I typically do the date in log form, which can be a whole lot of fun!  For example, today is 3 exp 2/3*5/10exp3.03.  People love it and I can teach them math!  how convenient is that?
I told him I love any holiday as long as it involves good food and drinking. Champagne preferrably, but a prosecco will do in a pinch!
take care all, and Happy New Year 10exp3.73!
joanne
Dear JoAnne
I am not a religious nut!   The fact is that I am an ultra liberal Jew.   This means I am like the Catholic Easter Bunnies in ‘spades!’   I go to the house of worship so often that I still have to use my GPS to find the place.
that said, the Jewish New Year is the holiest days of they year. (actually Yom Kippur is, it’s the day after or before, I forget, but I have to agree with you, Ken that  a New Year should be the holiest because, well, religion should look forward and forget the darned guilt!)   It a turning point in life when a Jew reflects on his/her conduct, forgives his/her enemies and asks for personal forgiveness.  It is a beginning and an end.  It is a celebration of life and redemption.
Few people can honestly even suggest that they are without sin.   Few people can look in the mirror and say, I like that person.  On the high holy days a jew looks into that mirror and asks the question and gives an answer.
An attorney takes an oath that is essentially as follows:
 
I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be), that I will support the constitution of the United States and the constitution of the state of Illinois, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of attorney and counselor at law to the best of my ability.  IL ST CH 705 § 205/4
What do those words mean?   They mean that I support the right of Mary Sykes and all mankind to liberty, property, civil rights and human rights.   It means that I am not going to watch your civil rights, Mary’s civil rights, Gloria’s civil rights or ***’s civil rights be trampled into the ground.   more specifically it means that I am not intimidated by Adam Stern, Cynthia Farenga, Peter Schmiedel, or any of their companions and ‘fellow traveler’s.’   It means that I am not intimidated by the ARDC panel or anyone else that takes objection to the fact that I have spoken out and will continue to speak out when I see injustice, breach of the law, and ‘cover up.’  It also means that I will continue to contact law enforcement to demand an honest, complete and comprehensive investigation into the Mary Sykes affair and every one of the similar cases – indeed, it also means that I will aid and abet law enforcement in bringing to justice each of the miscreants who have and are continuing to deny ‘grandma’ of her liberty, her property, her civil rights and her human rights.
The Jewish holiday reinforces the obligation of the attorney oath as I as an American was born with a gold spoon firmly attached to both ends.   I am a 2nd generation American.    My Grandfather homesteaded land in North Dakota and my father worked his way through medical school in the ‘cleaning plants’ of Chicago.  Each provided me with the heritage of Freedom.     My personal moral code dictates that I not squander that Freedom but allowing or sitting silent when I see Adam Stern, Cynthia Farenga, Peter Schmiedel and others participate in the activities that have been documented in Sykes, Gore, Tyler, Wyman and dozens of similar type cases now pending or disposed by the ultimate solution.
In today’s American society it may be politically correct to look the other way when a senior citizen is isolated from her family, her friends and neighbors, and it may be ethically challenged to assemble, protest to authorities and to activist groups, or otherwise object that the documented activities of Troepe, Stern, Farenga, Schmiedel and others; however.   in the year 5773 (2012) and following as long as the good Lord gives me life I intend to continue my protest for every senior or otherwise handicapped person who is abuse, exploited, or otherwise deprived of his/her liberty, property, civil rights and human rights.
I like the person whose image appears in the mirror when I shave.   The oath I took on November 28, 1961 meant something to me then and it means something to me now.   The High Holidays is a reaffirmation!
While I have the soapbox, I remember being in Judge Hoffman’s Court on one of the two Jewish holidays.  Hoffman liked to require Jewish lawyers to attend motion call on the Holidays, and as a young attorney you showed up prior to services.  Anyway, we were waiting for Julius the Just to appear, when in stormed the Chief Judge of the US District Court, he accosted Hoffman as they approached the bench.   The chief Judge (I cannot think of his name – he was Italian) roared:  “Julius, I do not give a damn if you respect yourself, but I demand that you respect me!  When you labor on the High Holy days you show your disrespect for me.”
Hoffman slink ed out of the courtroom and there were no more high holiday sessions in his courtroom.
In a similar manner when I allow myself to be intimidated or distracted from my obligation to support the United States Constitution and the Illinois Constitution by the likes of Stern, Farenga, Schmiedel, Black et al, I demonstrate not only disrespect for me, but for you and America.  Democracy is not a spectator sport!   Our American tradition and our Judeo-Christian tradition (and I need to add in the Muslims, Wiccans, Druids there, can’t forget them, I think that needs to be corrected to Judeo-Christian-Wiccan-Pagan Tradition)  is also not a spectator sport.    The fight that we have engaged in is more than a battle to protect senior citizens from Court appointed predators – it is our demonstration to our friends, neighbors, family, and most importantly our children and grandchildren that I respect me and thee!
Ken Ditkowsky

http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/

Breaking news–KDD found guilty of “misconduct” but exactly what miscondut?

Dear Readers;

Apparently today KDD received a letter from the ARDC saying they found him guilty of “misconduct”. No reasoning.  No findings of fact, no conclusions of law, no reasoning.  Just a blanket statement.

So what was the misconduct, exactly?  Was it because Larry Hyman made CF cry?  Was it because the cats in the peanut gallery commented on the fact LB’s high heels were too big and she flashed boobage during the proceeding clearly aimed at her second chair and the hearing panel chair to distract them?  Was it because the peanut gallery, consisting of the 6 to 8 major probate blogs shows up and laughed at LB during appropriate moments because she is clearly technologically challenged?

Many inquiring minds want to know.  Hey, I want to know.

But outpouring of sympathy and support for KDD is resplendent among the bloggers and peanut gallery and anyone else who read and reads his words of wisdom.

I advised him long ago to go to Federal Court because the ARDC was clearly “in” on all of this too and friends and cronies of the miscreants.  But did he listen?  Heck no.

So Ken, don’t dispair.  Get your butt over to federal court where the judges didn’t sleep during Con Law 101 and don’t have cronies on the 18th floor.  That’s where you belong and that’s where your intellect and abilities will shine.  Mucking around with the alligators in the swamp is not where you belong.  You are better served up on the hill with wise, intellectual human beings for a change.

take care

joanne

—– Forwarded Message —–
From: Martin
To: “NASGAmembers@yahoogroups.com” <NASGAmembers@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 5:32 PM
Subject: Re: [NASGAmembers] From Attorney Ken Ditkowsky re: Order – dated August 10, 2012 In re: Kenneth Ditkowsky 2012 PR 00014
Ken I would suggest on Monday you contact Richard Thompson of the Thomas More Law Center and have them represent you pro bono for violations of your 1st amendment rights to free speech. I was on the security detail for Pastor Terry Jones and Wayne Sapp and they were railroaded to about their free speech rights and they won their case.
Richard Thompson is the former Oakland County Prosecutor who successfully convicted Dr. Jack Korvorkian of assisted suicide. I will call you tomorrow with the contact information and the other contact person there is my friend Kathlyn Lynch.
Never give up my friend.
Regards,
Marty Prehn
PS Sounds like we may need a protest
From: nasga us <nasga.org@gmail.com>
To: NASGAIllinois@yahoogroups.com; NASGAmembers@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 5:56 PM
Subject: [NASGAmembers] From Attorney Ken Ditkowsky re: Order – dated August 10, 2012 In re: Kenneth Ditkowsky 2012 PR 00014

From: kenneth ditkowsky <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 1:41 PM
Subject: Order – dated August 10, 2012 In re: Kenneth Ditkowsky 2012 PR 00014
To: NASGA <nasga.org@gmail.com>, probate sharks <verenusl@gmail.com>, JoAnne M Denison <JoAnne@denisonlaw.com>, Tim Lahrman  Bev Cooper

Larry Hyman called to tell me apparently before the ARDC panel left for the day they found me guilty of misconduct.  As representatives of the various organizations that protest elder abuse/financial exploitation of the elderly  sat through the hearing it is apparent that each organization having a person present has an opinion as to the veracity of the finding that I acted improperly.   It would be helpful to me, if you would publicly express that opinion to the panel, the ARDC, and the public in general.
The ARDC order did not specify what conduct was misconduct, but, as the only conduct alleged was my complaining about the fact that Mary Sykes was railroaded into a guardianship sans jurisdiction and this situation has prevailed for three years – It is apparent that Lawyers are guilty of misconduct if they report elder abuse, financial exploitation of the elderly and/or exercise their First Amendment Rights.
It thus appears that the policy of the State of Illinois as stated in 735 ILCS 110/5 is just verbiage- it means absolutely nothing.  It apparently is the policy of the State of Illinois that the jurisdictional protections of 755 ILCS 11a – 1 et seq are irrelevant.    It is apparently the policy of the State of Illinois that the protections of the First Amendment are irrelevant, and the Supreme Court is also irrelevant.    An attorney who acts to disclose the ‘dirty little secret’ that senior citizens are being routinely deprived of their life, liberty, their property, their civil rights and human rights you can expect that you will be disciplined.  Censorship is alive and well!   The separation of a 90 year old lady from a million dollars of assets is a subject that must be ‘covered up!’   To request an investigation is obviously unethical.
Even though it is aggravation of my misconduct to advocate to law enforcement that they investigate the Mary Sykes case and similar cases I renew my call for an honest, complete and comprehensive investigation.   I do believe, though I could be wrong, this is still America and we still have a First Amendment and a Bill of Rights.  Democracy is not a spectator sport!
Ken Ditkowsky

http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/
Dear Ken;
Just a minor correction, but seniors are being deprived of life, liberty, property, human rights and civil rights.  We all know that nursing homes are dangerous places and seniors live about 40% or more fewer years there than in their own homes, so when probate courts declare seniors ALWAYS demented, ALWAYS in need of 24/7 specialized care in a lock down facility (to be sure they don’t escape home before the home is sold), then medicare liens the home, sells it and that pays the US govt AND the probate attys–everyone gets a piece of grandma’s and grandpa’s pie, except the families, we KNOW they’re not happy and they will lose the will to live.  It is clearly a deprivation of life, liberty and property and the shameful, dirty little secret of the US, and probate attys in general.

Ken Ditkowsky does a Cable Access Show on Sykes

Dear Readers;

In case you did not know, last night Ken Ditkowsky and Bev Cooper engaged in a wonderful discussion of the evil and corruption which has crept into the 18th floor of Probate, and specifically this show featured the ARDC proceedings.

I was at the taping, and I have been promised disks of relevant shows which I will post on Vimeo and Facebook for your viewing enjoyment.  The cable show airs on the North Shore in various suburbs on Comcast including approx. Highland Park, Winnetka, Lake Forest, etc.  Bev tells me it will air repeatedly over the next few days, which is great and will give the issues a whole lot more exposure.

Please read on for KDD’s wonderful assessment of portions of his trial (which I happen to agree with).

I also want to thank Bev and Ken Cooper very much for all their hard work on these shows, protecting Probate Court victims and eliminating corruption from the courts.

JoAnne

Ms. Denison/Ms Cooper
Ms Cooper, thank you for the opportunity to appear on your program and express my views on the Elder Abuse/Financial Exploitation of the Elderly situation.
On the way home from your studio I was reminded of the most serious of the allegations that I have made concerning the Elder Abuse/Financial Exploitation situation.   It is interesting that it is the one series of allegations that the ARDC has stayed far away from even though, the ARDC attorney wanted to know if I repented for writing a complaint letter to Attorney General Holder and disclosed the three currency situation that I believe that I uncovered.   Of course I did not repent as I believe that under the First Amendment I have a right to communicate with my government and with the public.    The cross examination questions are significant in that they assumed that there was something wrong with my communicating with law enforcement and others information that is detrimental to a whole group of well connected individuals who receive from the State and Federal governments very significant sums of money.  (The suggestion that it was unethical to disclose the three  currency scenario was most troubling.   Why should the ARDC be concerned that I was disclosing a ‘fraud!’?)   The verification of situation was not only the statement from a nursing home owner, but the fact that my niece was terminated in retaliation.   As a citizen I have a right to be concerned and under the First Amendment my right is absolute.  Our Federal Government is 16 trillion dollars in debt.  It is respectfully submitted that every citizen should report questionable situations in which the hard earned tax dollars may be acquired under suspicious circumstances.
 That said, the nursing home agreements are all uniform and all drafted by the very same attorney for his key client.     The agreements involve the basic structure of the nursing home agreements.     The crux of the agreement up until I got involved was understood by people in the know to be a debtor/creditor relationship masquerading as a limited partnership.   Pursuant to the agreement the understanding was that the general partners were to receive a management fee of 5 to 7% of the gross income of the facility.
The attorney who drafted the agreement recognized that under Illinois law the only person who can manage a nursing home (care facility) is a State licensed administrator.    Thus he drafted the agreement to provide that the general partners can participate in the management (administration) and not create a conflict of interest.    If they participated the management would receive the fee of 7% – 9%.     To participate in the management a State license is required.    The agreements that I was furnished – in my opinion – do not authorize an exception to 805 ILCS 215/406 (f) with regard to the statutory prohibitions infra.
Thus, in most of the nursing homes  – I say most, because there might be an exception or two – the licensed administrator manages the nursing home and is usually paid a salary.     There is no provision for an unlicensed administrator.    Now read 805 ILCS 215/406 (f).    “(f) a general partner is not entitled to remuneration for services performed for the partnership”     Thus, Mr.Esformes, Mr. Kaplan, Mr. Rothner,  et al. have been taking money for management of the partnership and were not entitled to the same.    If this money was charged to the State of Illinois as part of the administrative expense in medicaid or similar cases the State of Illinois (and the United States of America) have been overcharged in the same manner as might be alleged in connection with the transportation, drug, nursing, etc.     The big difference is that with the number of nursing homes, the duration and **** we could be talking a billion (with a B) dollars in State reimbursements.    Depending on how this was reported on tax returns were could be talking about a significant amount of taxes.    Accordingly, we need an immediate honest, complete, and comprehensive investigation into all these elder abuse/financial exploitation cases.    As I’ve indicated this investigation must do more than just scratch the surface.   I believe that the Sykes case is tied into the Federal Investigation into the transportation of nursing home occupants (Kaplan and Rothner), the pharmaceutical purchases (Esformes),  Energy (Multiut) etc  ****.   This is an octopus with many heads.    I previously suggested that there were three currencies used to ‘cover up’ the miscreant activity.    US currency being used for legitimate operations, nursing home beds for intramural transactions, and opportunity for even more critical scenarios.     (As I am not a professional investigator at best the foregoing is supposition.    It may be 100% wrong; however, I believe in its accuracy and therefore submit it to my friends and to selected law enforcement, including Senator Kirk to ascertain if my observations are accurate)
Now couple all this with the other politically related Elder Care scandals involving isolation, deprivation of rights, cover up, voting, etc., in which the cabal is involved, then we are talking some major money and a major reason for attempting to shut up lawyers who might blow the whistle or might alert the authorities.
As I informed the ARDC attorneys during cross examination, I intend to continue to exercise my First Amendment Rights and report to my friends, my neighbors, my clients and my government the information that I feel needs investigation.   As I told Mr. Carter and Mr. Doluce my files are open to them and I will share.    With our government is in need of funds to operate, I believe that those who desire to deny the senior citizens their liberty, their property, their civil rights and/or their human rights ought to pay their fair share.
Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com