Breaking news–KDD at before Review Panel today!

Hearing for KDD

Exceptions have been filed by the appellant.

Mr. D has 20 min to present, administrator 20 min to respond and then 10 min response.

KDD starts

I am here as an atty as a private citizen.  I was never involved in Sykes as an atty in until I was brought in on the sanction motion.  This was vacated and they ruled that I was a private citizen in that case.  I am a private citizen and as such I am entitled to a full complement of rights under the first amendmentto the US constitution

My position is recognized by not only by most jurists, but also by the state of Illinois and ask that you please read 750 ILCS sec 110 (refers to the Illinois Citizens Participation act) wherein a statement has been made by the Illinois Legislature.  It is stated therein that public policy of the State of Illinois is to foster free speech, arguments, debates, positions, opinions, etc. and that this is vital to the preservation of an open and free democracy.

Illinois has a guardianship law that deems to protect senior citizens from abuse, in particular the abuse of being railroaded, just as Mary Sykes was, and this statute exists so that judges and attorneys can try to avoid the improper imposition of guardianship.  I have gone into those guardianship issues in great detail in my brief and else where.

Referring now to 720 ILCS 4. In particular it says that if I make an abuse claim I am given immunity from prosecution and even disciplinary action.

The position of the ARDC here in this case is in fact 100% out of phase.  The commission never received the right to deal with my first amendment rights.

The supreme court has said nothing about allowing lawyer disciplinary boards being allowed to interfere with my constitutional rights,  and there is stare decisis, and this commission is bound by those rules of law,  just like everyone else is so bound.

The Gentile case was never cited by the Administrator because of the statement by Justice Renquist that disciplinary rules cannot publish actions protected by the first amendment.

I as a citizen am entitled to these first amendment rights.

I am a private citizen in relation to the Sykes case.

All I have done is I made a demand for an honest, complete and comprehensive investigation of elder cleansing.  It is the first cousin to racial and ethnic cleansing–and I need not define those for anyone in this room.  I have the right to make that demand to investigte, I have the right to email Mr. Holder, or any other official concerning the Sykes case.  Nonetheless, I was in a hearing room where I as asked to repent for writing that letter–a letter merely requesting that a complete, honest and thorough investigation be made of the Sykes case.

It is firmly my constitutional right to write that letter.

The US Supreme Curt has reviewed a number of first amendment rights, the latest case is one of the most liberal cases: under Alverez, as a private citizen, I have the right to claim I earned the congressional medal of honor, when in fact I have not.

My first amendment rights extend to virtual child porn under X case.

In the Brown case,  violent video games are allowed.

In Snyder, I can go to a funeral and I can say things that are absolutely appalling to the mourners present.

Citizens United clearly wraps this all up and says that first amendment and content based speech is totally protected and the government may not intrude upon my first amendment free speech rights.

The Supreme Court says that in order to take a case it must be investigated.  Rule 127 says I cannot file a case recklessly.  I must investigate.  In April 2010, when Mary’s friends and family came in and they told me Mary had been unfairly railroaded into a guardianship she opposed, I knew I first had to follow this Rule 127 requirement.  However, Rule 127 is not meant to be a catch 22.  It cannot be argued that I must investigate but if I do, other attorneys may complain I am acting unethically.  This is only an ethical obligation and not a trap for the unwary.

How can it ever be unethical to follow the rules of the court?

If you look at the Sykes case, these statements are backed up by affidavits and declarations, by Gloria Sykes, the sisters and the transcripts of the proceeding.  You will notice that not a single person who had actual knowledge was called to testify.  No person who had actual knowledge of the facts of the theft.   No actual person was asked about the 6 trips to the emergency room.

If you want to look at the gold coins,  Gloria Sykes was a signatory on the safe deposit box.  She had an ownership interest in the box.  Yolada Bakken had told me that the bag of coins was about (gestures) 10″ high and 6″ around and it  that it had 6 inches of gold coins in it.

Carolyn Toerpe was never called, yet she has been accused of stealing from the estate.

What they did was they called GAL Stern who said he served a subpoena.  In this case, because it was a safe deposit box, serving a subpoena means nothing because the bank cannot legally know the contents of a safe deposit box..

Gloria should have testified, Yolanda should have testified, and Kathie should have testified.

The appellate court in Soldini declared that the petitioner had to serve prior 14 days service upon the near relatives to attain jurisdiction.  But in Sykes it should be noted court that two sisters were never disclosed, yet the ARDC did not call Gloria Sykes or Yolanda.

During my hearing there was never any search for the truth, any due process, and search for fairness or justice, was ever undertaken.

In the hearing board’s decision, they said the sisters had knowledge of the (12/07/13) hearing.  But it has to be prior knowledge.

Section 5/11a is to protect the due process rights of Mary Sykes and people like her.

There is supposed to be a hearing.  There was no hearing held.  What there was was an agreement between the two GAL’s and Toerpe’s attorney to have Mary declared incompetent and then Toerpe appointed, which then became part of the findings.

Witnesses were not called.  Testimony was not taken.

Referring to the transcript of Aug 2009, there was no ccp211, this judge had to find Mary Sykes incompetent by clear and convincing evidence, it must meet requirement of 5/11a which has specific requirement to have someone declared incompetent, but according to the evidence deposition of Judge C, she states for the record, if counsel is having trouble getting a CCP211 done, the “why don’t we just get another doctor that can do it.”

That is about as close to an announcement promoting doctor shopping as you can get.

If you look at the 14 days notice requirement, you will find something very similar.

Not only that, but Judge Connors, in her deposition was asked, What would happen if there was no jurisdiction? And she answered:  If I found out about it, I would vacate and then I would get the same result.

As a citizen I have right to complain about that.

This is a state where 2 governors were recently .put in prison, 15 sitting judges in Greylord went to prison.

Everyone know in order to get someone before the court you have to serve them with a summons.

It says in the Illinois Probate Act what you have to do to serve a summons.

The sheriffs office denies they served a summons.

There is no evidence of any summons.

You will see they directed an employee to serve at a place in Chicago; however,  mary was living in DuPage county so that was an impossible duty.

The summons must have been in large bold print with a statement of rights, that was never done.

Rule of law equally implies to you I, the probate court and Mary.

The Rules of law have been set forth by the US Supreme Court:

I can make statement untrue about my qualifications,

I can make and propagate virtual child porn, I can provide violent video games to people, I can harass mourners with terrible signs and speeches.

According to this commission I can not complaint about a little old lady being railroaded into a guardianship and deprive her of her human and civil rights.

Let me read the First Amendment to this panel…. Congress shall make no law prohibiting (First amendment read to Board)….and I have the right to petition the government for redress of grievances.  That’s why I wrote Mr. Holder, the AG’s and whomever I could get to take action.

We need to get the Alice Gore investigated.  Why were here gold teeth removed but not inventoried? (This was after she was isolated for 6 months!  This is what M. Solo did to 99 year old Alice Gore.

I have a responsibility to speak out, and it’s the right thing to do.  The people who want to take my license away for doing the right thing are wrong, clearly wrong.

We need to get a complete comprehensive and thorough investigation of these probate cases.

Initial argument ends, the ARDC attorney for the Administrator steps up:

Steven Splitt.

He cites all these cases are all good law with respect to citizens.  However he explains that KDD’s rights are not the same as an ordinary citizen: rather KDD’s rights have been  circumscribed.  The US Sup Ct has never said that you can make false allegations regarding a judge.

Gentile arises out of a Nevada disciplinary action.  The lawyer who represented a criminal defendant, had made a public statement during trial implying that the chief of police had stolen the cocaine.  The NV bar said that the statement would have materially prejudiced a judicial proceeding.

However, the statute had a safe harbor provision and therefore the US Sup Ct said that the statute was not unconstitutional.  What the us supreme court decided was the that the safe harbor was not too vague so as to harm Mr. Gentile’s first amendment rights and therefore the US Sup. Ct. Said the statute would stand and I was not unconstitutional.

Garrison made false statements in his case and the court said constitutional provisions did not protect this.

A lawyer cannot say something false about a court or judge, the lawyer cannot attack a judge.

Everyone understands there are instances when an atty disagrees with the decisions of a judge.

The first amendment protects the person from saying the judge was wrong, but to jump to the idea that the judge was corrupt is entirely different.  If you have no way to jump to corruption based upon the evidence you have knowledge of, that is wrong.

He does not have a objectively fair and reasonable way to claim Stuart and Connors were corrupt.  Both testified that they were not corrupt and did not take any assets from Mary Sykes.

He said that the GAL’s were splitting assets with the judges. (Really?)

Moreover, the Sykes appeal was dismissed because the brief format was in error (Now this is strange, because it’s not in the record), the litigant was given plenty of chances to correct the brief.  (Really?  Where is that in the record?)

No court has even ruled these judge were even wrong.

He was given a responsibility to follow through on the appeal, the appeal was dismissed, they could not file a brief that could follow the rules, and so it was all dismissed.

Lawyers have done this for a number of years, tried to allege corruption and protection under free speech.  This has been going on for a half century in Illinois.

One lawyer immediately jumps to the judge is corrupt.  He jumps to it.  No evidence, no cause.

The first amendment does not protect the false statement when in fact it is false and reckless.

The hearing board concluded KDD’s statements were in fact false.

The testimony of administrator’s witnesses were credible.  Judges Stuart and Connors denied receiving any compensation, and AS and CF denied responsibility for wrongdoing.

Justice Connors denied everything KDD said about her.

He didn’t come up with anything unreasonable or unjust in the Sykes case.

He never showed during his trial any objectively reasonable basis for his statements.

The finding were not erroneous or against the manifest weight of the evidence.

The sanction was appropriate.

He has not denied it.

A half century of law, and multiple instances of harming a judge’s integrity with baseless statements are grounds for discipline.

And in these case, they always end with a long suspension or disbarrment.

He then cites Kozel and other cases–cases where the attorneys called the judges names and insulted them–these are not apposite to KDD’s case.

The sanction recommendation comports with disbarrment.

One of the Board asks about the Duzen case and is there a burden type of shifting.  Splitt responds that there is no burden shifting used in this case.  It talked about burdens of proof, but not shifting.  The administrator did not go to hearing and say you cannot go to hearing and try to  prove all of your allegations made as true.

There was no reasonable basis to say these were true.  He had no reasonable, factual basis.

He concludes.

KDD is back on for ten minutes.

In 1961 I was first sworn in I took an oath to defend the constitution.  It is still my assertion that the Supreme Ct has not granted the ARDC rights to deal in this particular type of case, and determine whether or not (with respect to the first amendment) that attys are second class citizens.  In the Gentile case, Justice Rhenquist made it clear that attorneys have first amendment rights.  That’s a non issue.

As far as appeals are concerned, I have no standing.  I have never filed an appearance in that case or an appeal.  I stand as an ordinary citizen to the Sykes case.

The fact that a lay person can’t get an appellate brief formatted propertly doesn’t make all the wrongdoing at the trial court level right or make it go away..

You have deposition of Judge Connors.  Read what is required to be done. Judge Connors made it clear she did not have to follow all those laws and rules.

The appellate courts says I am a private citizen with respect to the Sykes case.  I am a citizen.  There is nothing in there that makes an attorney second class citizen.  There is nothing that says a citizen cannot complain about an elected official, and as the Gillespie case points out, public officials are subject to free reign as to discussion of (the quality or lack thereof with respect) their job performance in office and they cannot complain. The Gillespie case was right.

The Administrator cites the Sawyer case in his favor, but it is not.

The Sawyer case involved an attorney who was trying a case and when the case was over she gave a lecture about her experiences, and she was very critical of the judge and the law and the Hawaii bar got all hot and bothered about it.

The US Supreme Court said that she had a right to do this under the First Amendment

There has been no indication that a lawyer is a second class citizen whatsoever.

And a 4 year suspension for a 77 years old lawyer is preposterous.

And the suspension is being imposed only for doing what the Ill. Sup. court rules requires me to do.

Court one says I wrote a benign letter to Dr. Patel.  They said that he was intimidated by my letter.  They didn’t even ask him if he was intimidated. (It appeared during trial that he didn’t remember the letter or even reading it).

They have the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence.

How do you protect the public when the court is saying openly, “let’s find another doctor” when the first won’t cooperate, or Judge Connors says in her deposition with respect to jurisdiction it does not matter because if the case were dismiss for lack of jurisdiction we just would have held another hearing and come to the same result.  That is about as clear a case as you can get of impropriety.

Since the judge is an elected official, I have the right to complaint that this is wrong.

No one can come to you (as a lawyer) and say to you you can’t talk (openly and honestly) to about  this case.

If you are not involved in the case then you can say what you want until the cows come home.

You don’t even have to look at whether the words are true or false. (Or if the GAL’s might cry and wet their pants later over what you said).

The whole situation revolves around a complaint I made to the US AG and other people complaining about a little old laday being taken out of her home, brought into another facility and placed there in derogation of her liberty and property rights and placed in jeopardy.

If you look at the statue of what a guardianship is supposed to be it is only to be used to the extent necessary to protect the ward, orders and decisions should be made only to the extent that the ward herself cannot make a reasoned decision.

When this lady was taken from her home and place in Du Page (without her consent or approval), this was tantamount to giving her a death sentence.  As a lawyer, you have a duty to speak out.  As a judge you have a duty to speak out and say this is wrong.  As a moral person you have a duty to speak out.  I have to face myself in the mirror and if I see what is going on in this case and I see Mary Sykes removed from her home, and isolated and attys should speak out and judges should speak out.  Do you know what that judge did to Mary Sykes, do you know what this judge did to Mrs. Gore and Mrs. Wyman?

There is nothing in our constitution that says lawyers cannot speak out, they must speak out.

What about the limits of our free speech.  What about the cases cited by the Administrator in his argument?

Well, the cases he cited were clearly over ruled in recent U.S. Sup. Ct.  decisions Alvarez, Ashcroft, by Citizens United, I believe have clearly overruled any unnecessary restrictions on content based speech.

Also those cases the Administrator can all be distinguished because in each of those cases, the attorney was a lawyer on the case.

Just because I am a lawyer and I comment on a case, does not make me a second class citizen.

Bussy v Ferguson is no longer the law, because just people rejected the idea of creating a 2nd class of citizenship for certain undesireable people.

Buck v. Bell likewise has rejected the notion that certain disabled people should be considered second class in society.

Going back to when I first investigated this case at the behest of Mary and friends and family, at that time I was looking to being an attorney .  Under FRCP Rule 11 and Ill. Sup. Ct. Rule 127 I had a duty to investigate, I heard what Mary’s friends and family were saying about railroading Mary. So I sent out a letter to her doctor. The letter was very benign.  Dr. Patel was never in any way intimidated.

From the court:  Whatever the letter says it says, did you speak with Mary before that?

KDD replies that he was hired by Mary thru Gloria.

Ding the correct answer is: Mary asked Gloria to hire KDD and he responded.  FURTHER, Gloria was the POA for Mary and she had the right to do so.

If I did not investigate then I would be sanctioned under Rules 127

No further questions or comments and the oral argument concludes

BUT AS THE BOARD WAS WALKING OUT THE ROOM, AND ASK KEN TURNED TO US, EVERYONE IN THE GALLEY STOOD UP AND GAVE KEN A STANDING OVATIONS.

Okay, it took me awhile, I would have dropped my laptop.

JoAnne

What to do when assets are uninventoried or “fall off” the accounting statement? 1099 them!

One of the most common complaints I hear from probate victims is that assets (often tens of thousands or more) are not inventoried in probate, and/or assets suddenly “fall off” the yearly accounting and the court looks the other way, and no matter how much the victim screams and yells, hollers at the top of their lungs there is theft, embezzlement and fraud going on, the court looks the other way, and the GAL’s and plenary guardians rub their hands together with glee, over whatever split they get for doing this.

 

The solution from Ken?  Send them a 1099!

 

Great idea and thanks Ken.  Let them explain it to the IRS and where the money went.  That’s not my job or yours.

Seriously. I get a choice? Please be with KDD on Friday in his time of need…

Friday at 11 am with oral argument, that’s when Ken goes before the Review Board at One Prudential Plaza, 15th floor with the ARDC Review Board over his case where he did NOTHING wrong except try to investigate the Sykes case, met up with two nasty GAL’s, one of whom told him outright, you investigate this case and I will ensure you are disbarred–just like a wise guy, and the rest is history.

What did we all find after that fateful investigation?  A probate court without jurisdiction–operating now for 4 years, no discovery permitted by the younger daughter Gloria and millions of dollars in gold coins missing, a safe deposit box in the name of Gloria and Mary drilled out in early 2010, GAL’s that told the court repeatedly “the coins are imaginary, your honor”, GAL’s that told a tribunal “they investigated” by serving subpoenas and then the Record on Appeal comes out and it shows that there were no subpoenas served in fact, no return of service, no certificate of completeness.  I can go on and on about Sykes, but I won’t.

Then we get an ARDC that says no atty can talk about corruption or we have to apologize at the same time we do that and try to convince people it doesn’t exist–despite the fact that most of you, my readers, come from the probate blogs and know that the probate blogs have been ablaze for years on corruption — corruption that goes to the highest levels, from the trial courts up to your state supreme courts and with no explanation and no relief.  Millions of dollars in uninventoried assets missing, tens of thousands that “fall off” inventories and yearly accountings and the judges look the other way and the GAL’s and guardians and conservators rub their hands together and cackle with glee. They get what percent for doing that?  Now I have an experienced investigative reporter from Westchester New York, former atty Dean Loren, telling me that it looks like the loot is going to campaign contributions and both parties are doing it!  I have Janet Phelan, an experienced reporter telling me to pull property records and in her case she found definite trends of money laundering from the dirtiest judges in Calfornia–and got them off her case.  She found pulling Judicial Ethics and Financial disclosures–which must be detailed by law, is the best way hands down to get rid of the dirt.  Then there are the people who ask me their judges that are absolutely awful and unjust were never elected.  What’s up with that? Then I am told by my sources that the powers that be have an honest and clean attorney elected to be a judge, suddenly he retires after a couple months, and then what is appointed is dirt.

So I guess attorneys have to apologize for talking about corruption, and I am sorry I have to do that.  I really am.  I can’t practice law effectively, I can’t explain this to my clients, because they turn on me and ask what are YOU doing about all this.  I have no answer. Ken and I can write to the AG’s the FBI and we can blog, but that’s about it.  We are not prosecutors, true investigators with databases handy at our fingertips, etc.

At some point, the system just gets caught up in itself and there is no answer.

Ken’s oral argument is Friday, my trial is on October 28, 2013 and I got told by a former ARDC attorney that the ARDC never gives up, they keep on going until they get you–despite all evidence to the contrary!  I’ve been an attorney for 27 years and I’ve always believe in truth and justice, and when it turns out your client’s case is a dud, graciously get rid of it or get yourself out of the case.  Don’t ever get involved in injustice because it’s just bad karma and the universe WILL make you pay for that, and the longer you go on, the larger the repayment will be.

It’s always easier, I have found to tell the truth, to act with justice and honor, to tell your clients you are an officer of the court and as such you won’t suborn perjury, fight a useless fight for their own greed and evil, and their case just fell apart and you recommend a stipulated dismissal with prejudice.

I’m not going to tell the ARDC what to do, but if this truly is their policy–go after honest and ethical attorneys, don’t stop when you are faced with the undeniable truth–it’s bad karma and never works out in the end.

But the other thing I know is that you can’t interfere with someone else’s karma and you can’t control people.  That’s up to the universe who will always be a much stricter school marm than you or I will always be.

In the meantime, Mr. Ken Cooper of Probate Sharks, another famous Probate Blog that decries the lack of justice in our nation’s probate courts, provides us today with the following sentiments:

On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 8:14 AM, JoAnne M Denison <jdenison@surfree.com> wrote:
Dear Ken;

You are way too sweet.  Okay to publish?

thanks

joanne
—–Original Message—–
From: Lucius Verenus
Sent: Oct 10, 2013 7:29 AM
To: kenneth ditkowsky
Cc: JANET PHELAN , JoAnne M Denison , Atty Ken Ditkowsky , Lisa Vogel GNT title , Robert Voegel , “tips@tribune.com” , SUNTIMES , “60m@cbsnews.com” <60m@cbsnews.com>, NASGA , j ditkowsky
Subject: Re: Seriously. A choice?

There are times and events where individuals and small groups of people stand fast against tyranny and corruption. Some of the heroes are historical figures and many are lost in the fog of history.  Famous notable examples are the Spartans at Thermopylae, The Alamo, von Staufenberg of “The Hitler Bomb Plot” and Sir Thomas Mann.
Few, will note or remember the sacrifice of the “Students against Hitler”, Hildegard Gruenigan, Krisof Probst, Axel Denk and Klaus Schneider. This heroic group printed flyers denouncing Hitler and his evil cabal.  They all paid for their efforts with their lives and died in concentration camps. The evil they fought against was ultimately exposed and destroyed.
All of the above paid severe penalties for their heroism and courage but made their mark in the ultimate victory against tyranny an corruption  We in Illinois, have our own examples of courage in Ken Ditkowsky and JoAnne Denison and we are morally responsible to provide them with every support possible.  Please be with them in their time of need…tomorrow.  KC

On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 8:00 PM, kenneth ditkowsky <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com> wrote:

I made the choice on November 28, 1961 – I have a need to be able to look into the mirror and like the person who is reflected therein.    I have from time to time been offered ‘bribes’ to back off from a legal position and have refused in every case.    Intimidation has not worked either, and it certainly is not going to work now.
The material uncovered warrants an HONEST complete and comprehensive investigation.   The hearing panel finding that Mary’s two sisters had knowledge of whatever competency hearing was allegedly held – there was none – needs investigation.      As neither sister was called, how could a panel consisting of two lawyers reach such a conclusion?   Lawyers know about evidence.    What is even more serious is the fact that the hearing panel never stated that the knowledge was ‘prior’ knowledge!
When facts are being made up intelligent prevaricators
Ken Ditkowsky
On Wednesday, October 9, 2013 5:59 PM, JANET PHELAN <janetcphelan@yahoo.com> wrote:
But this goes to the very core of the problem. “Sell out and we will ensure your continued viability. Stick to your guns and you are sooooo…outta here.”
And it works so well, with most people. Who wants to spend the rest of their lives scrapping for a living, having to explain their lack of professional standing? Who wants to live in a cabin on a mountain in Mexico?
Most people are grounded in their economic and professional status. When people are otherwise grounded, in a moral or ethical belief system, they become dispensable.
Janet
From: JoAnne M Denison <jdenison@surfree.com>
To: Atty Ken Ditkowsky <ken@ditkowskylawoffice.com>; Janet Phelan <janetcphelan@yahoo.com>;
Sent: Wednesday, October 9, 2013 4:55 PM
Subject: Seriously. A choice?
So I’m talking to E*******, a former ARDC attorney and she said I probably  have to make a choice whether I like my law license better of if I want to blog about and expose corruption and clean up our court system.SERIOUSLY????

Is there a choice there?

That might be great for an opening argument.  Who in their right mind asks a question like that, and it was coming from a former ARDC attorney!!!

The real question, is how do I explain all of this then to my clients.  Well, I used to blog about corruption so we could clean up the courts so that you, my client could get a fair shake in this courtroom today, but then the ARDC asked me to make a choice between my law license or cleaning up the court system, and so that’s why when we get to court EXPECT THE JUDGE AND OPPOSING COUNSEL TO BE UTTERLY CORRUPT AND THE ARDC HAS MANDATED THIS WITH IMPUNITY.

She really just wanted to get off the phone after she realized where the entire conversation was going and how there was no real answer to any of this.  Her excuse was that she has never done a case blogging about corruption and I should find an attorney with experience in that!

another day in ARDC paradise.

joanne

KDD’S PUBLIC CHEAT SHEET ON ILLINOIS PROBATE LAW

KEN DITKOWSKY’S CHEAT SHEET ON PROBATE LAW
     
    Public Policy
    ·        § 5. “Public policy. Pursuant to the fundamental philosophy of the American constitutional form of government, it is declared to be the public policy of the State of Illinois that the constitutional rights of citizens and organizations to be involved and participate freely in the process of government must be encouraged and safeguarded with great diligence. The information, reports, opinions, claims, arguments, and other expressions provided by citizens are vital to effective law enforcement, the operation of government, the making of public policy and decisions, and the continuation of representative democracy. The laws, courts, and other agencies of this State must provide the utmost protection for the free exercise of these rights of petition, speech, association, and government participation.
    “Civil actions for money damages have been filed against citizens and organizations of this State as a result of their valid exercise of their constitutional rights to petition, speak freely, associate freely, and otherwise participate in and communicate with government. There has been a disturbing increase in lawsuits termed “Strategic Lawsuits against Public Participation” in government or “SLAPPs” as they are popularly called.
    The threat of SLAPPs significantly chills and diminishes citizen participation in government, voluntary public service, and the exercise of these important constitutional rights. This abuse of the judicial process can and has been used as a means of intimidating, harassing, or punishing citizens and organizations for involving themselves in public affairs.
    “It is in the public interest and it is the purpose of this Act to strike a balance between the rights of persons to file lawsuits for injury and the constitutional rights of persons to petition, speak freely, associate freely, and otherwise participate in government; to protect and encourage public participation in government to the maximum extent permitted by law; to establish an efficient process for identification and adjudication of SLAPPs; and to provide for attorney’s fees and costs to prevailing movants”.  735 ILCS 110/5
     
    “A person making a report under this Act in the belief that it is in the alleged victim’s best interest shall be immune from criminal or civil liability or professional disciplinary action on account of making the report, notwithstanding any requirements concerning the confidentiality of information with respect to such eligible adult which might otherwise be applicable.”   320 ILCS 20/4[1]
    For public policy statement see:  County of DeWitt  v. Am Fed’N of   298 Ill App3d 634
    Statutory Criterion:
      Criterion:
     
    § 11a-3. Adjudication of disability; Power to appoint guardian.
    Upon the filing of a petition by a reputable person or by the alleged disabled person himself or on its own motion, the court may adjudge a person to be a disabled person, but only if it has been demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that the person is a disabled person as defined in Section 11a-2. If the court adjudges a person to be a disabled person, the court may appoint (1) a guardian of his person, if it has been demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that because of his disability he lacks sufficient understanding or capacity to make or communicate responsible decisions concerning the care of his person, or (2) a guardian of his estate, if it has been demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that because of his disability he is unable to manage his estate or financial affairs, or (3) a guardian of his person and of his estate.
     
    ·        Guardianship shall be utilized only as is necessary to promote the well-being of the disabled person, to protect him from neglect, exploitation, or abuse, and to encourage development of his maximum self-reliance and independence. Guardianship shall be ordered only to the extent necessitated by the individual’s actual mental, physical and adaptive limitations.   755 ILCS 5/11a-3
     
    Venue
    ·         
    ·        § 11a-7. Venue. If the alleged ward is a resident of this State, the proceeding shall be instituted in the court of the county in which he resides. If the alleged ward is not a resident of this State, the proceeding shall be instituted in the court of a county in which his real or personal estate is located.   755 ILCS 5/11a-7
     
    Petition:
     
    § 11a -8. Petition. The petition for adjudication of disability and for the appointment of a guardian of the estate or the person or both of an alleged disabled person must state, if known or reasonably ascertainable: (a) the relationship and interest of the petitioner to the respondent; (b) the name, date of birth, and place of residence of the respondent; (c) the reasons for the guardianship; (d) the name and post office address of the respondent’s guardian, if any, or of the respondent’s agent or agents appointed under the Illinois Power of Attorney Act,1 if any; (e) the name and post office addresses of the nearest relatives of the respondent in the following order: (1) the spouse and adult children, parents and adult brothers and sisters, if any; if none, (2) nearest adult kindred known to the petitioner; (f) the name and address of the person with whom or the facility in which the respondent is residing; (g) the approximate value of the personal and real estate; (h) the amount of the anticipated annual gross income and other receipts; (i) the name, post office address and in case of an individual, the age, relationship to the respondent and occupation of the proposed guardian. In addition, if the petition seeks the appointment of a previously appointed standby guardian as guardian of the disabled person, the petition must also state: (j) the facts concerning the standby guardian’s previous appointment and (k) the date of death of the disabled person’s guardian or the facts concerning the consent of the disabled person’s guardian to the appointment of the standby guardian as guardian, or the willingness and ability of the disabled person’s guardian to make and carry out day-to-day care decisions concerning the disabled person. A petition for adjudication of disability and the appointment of a guardian of the estate or the person or both of an alleged disabled person may not be dismissed or withdrawn without leave of the court.
    755 ILCS 5/11a-8
     
    Obtaining Jurisdiction.
     
    ·        Procedure and Jurisdiction 11a – 10
    11a-10. Procedures preliminary to hearing.
    o   (a) Upon the filing of a petition pursuant to Section 11a-8, the court shall set a date and place for hearing to take place within 30 days. The court shall appoint a guardian ad litem to report to the court concerning the respondent’s best interests consistent with the provisions of this Section, except that the appointment of a guardian ad litem shall not be required when the court determines that such appointment is not necessary for the protection of the respondent or a reasonably informed decision on the petition. If the guardian ad litem is not a licensed attorney, he or she shall be qualified, by training or experience, to work with or advocate for the developmentally disabled, mentally ill, physically disabled, the elderly, or persons disabled because of mental deterioration, depending on the type of disability that is alleged in the petition. The court may allow the guardian ad litem reasonable compensation. The guardian ad litem may consult with a person who by training or experience is qualified to work with persons with a developmental disability, persons with mental illness, or physically disabled persons, or persons disabled because of mental deterioration, depending on the type of disability that is alleged. The guardian ad litem shall personally observe the respondent prior to the hearing and shall inform him orally and in writing of the contents of the petition and of his rights under Section 11a-11. The guardian ad litem shall also attempt to elicit the respondent’s position concerning the adjudication of disability, the proposed guardian, a proposed change in residential placement, changes in care that might result from the guardianship, and other areas of inquiry deemed appropriate by the court. Notwithstanding any provision in the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Confidentiality Act or any other law, a guardian ad litem shall have the right to inspect and copy any medical or mental health record of the respondent which the guardian ad litem deems necessary, provided that the information so disclosed shall not be utilized for any other purpose nor be redisclosed except in connection with the proceedings. At or before the hearing, the guardian ad litem shall file a written report detailing his or her observations of the respondent, the responses of the respondent to any of the inquires detailed in this Section, the opinion of the guardian ad litem or other professionals with whom the guardian ad litem consulted concerning the appropriateness of guardianship, and any other material issue discovered by the guardian ad litem. The guardian ad litem shall appear at the hearing and testify as to any issues presented in his or her report.
    o   (b) The court (1) may appoint counsel for the respondent, if the court finds that the interests of the respondent will be best served by the appointment, and (2) shall appoint counsel upon respondent’s request or if the respondent takes a position adverse to that of the guardian ad litem. The respondent shall be permitted to obtain the appointment of counsel either at the hearing or by any written or oral request communicated to the court prior to the hearing. The summons shall inform the respondent of this right to obtain appointed counsel. The court may allow counsel for the respondent reasonable compensation.
    o   (c) If the respondent is unable to pay the fee of the guardian ad litem or appointed counsel, or both, the court may enter an order for the petitioner to pay all such fees or such amounts as the respondent or the respondent’s estate may be unable to pay. However, in cases where the Office of State Guardian is the petitioner, consistent with Section 30 of the Guardianship and Advocacy Act,1 where the public guardian is the petitioner, consistent with Section 13-5 of the Probate Act of 1975, where an elder abuse provider agency is the petitioner, pursuant to Section 9 of the Elder Abuse and Neglect Act,2 where the Department of Human Services Office of Inspector General is the petitioner, consistent with Section 45 of the Abuse of Adults with Disabilities Intervention Act, or where the Department of Children and Family Services is the petitioner under subparagraph (d) of subsection (1) of Section 2-27 of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987, no guardian ad litem or legal fees shall be assessed against the Office of State Guardian, the public guardian, the elder abuse provider agency, the Department of Human Services Office of Inspector General, or the Department of Children and Family Services.
    o   (d) The hearing may be held at such convenient place as the court directs, including at a facility in which the respondent resides.
    o   (e) Unless he is the petitioner, the respondent shall be personally served with a copy of the petition and a summons not less than 14 days before the hearing.
     
    o   The summons shall be printed in large, bold type and shall include the following notice:
     
    o   NOTICE OF RIGHTS OF RESPONDENT
     
    o   You have been named as a respondent in a guardianship petition asking that you be declared a disabled person. If the court grants the petition, a guardian will be appointed for you. A copy of the guardianship petition is attached for your convenience.
    o   The date and time of the hearing are:
    o   The place where the hearing will occur is:
    o   The Judge’s name and phone number is:
    o   If a guardian is appointed for you, the guardian may be given the right to make all important personal decisions for you, such as where you may live, what medical treatment you may receive, what places you may visit, and who may visit you. A guardian may also be given the right to control and manage your money and other property, including your home, if you own one. You may lose the right to make these decisions for yourself.
    o   You have the following legal rights:
    o   (1) You have the right to be present at the court hearing.
    o   (2) You have the right to be represented by a lawyer, either one that you retain, or one appointed by the Judge.
    o   (3) You have the right to ask for a jury of six persons to hear your case.
    o   (4) You have the right to present evidence to the court and to confront and cross-examine witnesses.
    o   (5) You have the right to ask the Judge to appoint an independent expert to examine you and give an opinion about your need for a guardian.
    o   (6) You have the right to ask that the court hearing be closed to the public.
    o   (7) You have the right to tell the court whom you prefer to have for your guardian.
    o   You do not have to attend the court hearing if you do not want to be there. If you do not attend, the Judge may appoint a guardian if the Judge finds that a guardian would be of benefit to you. The hearing will not be postponed or canceled if you do not attend.
    o   IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT YOU ATTEND THE HEARING IF YOU DO NOT WANT A GUARDIAN OR IF YOU WANT SOMEONE OTHER THAN THE PERSON NAMED IN THE GUARDIANSHIP PETITION TO BE YOUR GUARDIAN. IF YOU DO NOT WANT A GUARDIAN OF IF YOU HAVE ANY OTHER PROBLEMS, YOU SHOULD CONTACT AN ATTORNEY OR COME TO COURT AND TELL THE JUDGE.
    o   Service of summons and the petition may be made by a private person 18 years of age or over who is not a party to the action.
    o    
    o   (f) Notice of the time and place of the hearing shall be given by the petitioner by mail or in person to those persons, including the proposed guardian, whose names and addresses appear in the petition and who do not waive notice, not less than 14 days before the hearing.      755 ILCS 5/11a-10      see:  Sodoni  172 Ill App2d 1055
    ·          Steinfeld 158 Ill 2d 1
     
     
    ·        Hearing:
    (e) At the hearing the court shall inquire regarding: (1) the nature and extent of respondent’s general intellectual and physical functioning; (2) the extent of the impairment of his adaptive behavior if he is a person with a developmental disability, or the nature and severity of his mental illness if he is a person with mental illness; (3) the understanding and capacity of the respondent to make and communicate responsible decisions concerning his person; (4) the capacity of the respondent to manage his estate and his financial affairs; (5) the appropriateness of proposed and alternate living arrangements; (6) the impact of the disability upon the respondent’s functioning in the basic activities of daily living and the important decisions faced by the respondent or normally faced by adult members of the respondent’s community; and (7) any other area of inquiry deemed appropriate by the court.
    755 ILCS 5/11a-11
     
     
    Cases
     
    United States vs. Alvarez  132 S. Ct 2537        – lost valor –
    Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union 535 US 564   –  virtual child porn
    Brown v. Entm’t Merchants Ass’n 131 S. Ct 2729    – violent video games
    Synder v. Phelps  131 S. Ct 1207  –   cemetery picketing
    Citizens United v. Fed Election 130 S. Ct 876   –   clear statement that First Amendment rights are a serious matter – and cannot be impaired directly or indirectly.
     
    The First Amendment requires heightened scrutiny whenever the government creates “a regulation of speech because of disagreement with the message it conveys.” Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791, 109 S.Ct. 2746, 105 L.Ed.2d 661 (1989); see also Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U.S. 41, 48, 106 S.Ct. 925, 89 L.Ed.2d 29 (1986) (explaining that “ ‘content-neutral’ speech regulations” are “those that are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech” (internal quotation marks omitted)). A government bent on frustrating an impending demonstration might pass a law demanding two years’ notice before the issuance of parade permits. Even if the hypothetical measure on its face appeared neutral as to content and speaker, its purpose to suppress speech and its unjustified burdens on expression would render it unconstitutional. Ibid. Commercial speech is no exception. See Discovery Network, supra, at 429–430, 113 S.Ct. 1505 (commercial speech restriction lacking a “neutral justification” was not content neutral). A “consumer’s concern for the free flow of commercial speech often may be far keener than his concern for urgent political dialogue.” Bates v. State Bar of Ariz., 433 U.S. 350, 364, 97 S.Ct. 2691, 53 L.Ed.2d 810 (1977). That reality has great relevance in the fields of medicine and public health, where information can save lives.
    Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 131 S. Ct. 2653, 2664, 180 L. Ed. 2d 544 (2011)
     
    Definition of Clear and Convincing Standard.  
     
    Clear and convincing proof is a demanding standard “denot [ing] a degree of belief that lies between the belief that is required to find the truth or existence of the [fact in issue] in an ordinary civil action and the belief that is required to find guilt in a criminal prosecution…. [The burden] is sustained if evidence induces in the mind of the trier a reasonable belief that the facts asserted are highly **516 probably true, that the probability that they are true or exist is substantially greater than the probability that they are false or do not exist.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., at 290-91, 715 A.2d 712.
     
     
 
     
     
    [1]       § 35:30. Hearing to adjudicate a person disabled
    The respondent is entitled to be represented by counsel, to demand a jury of 6 persons, to present evidence, and to confront and cross-examine all witnesses.1 The hearing may be closed to the public on request of the respondent, the guardian ad litem, or appointed or other counsel for the respondent.2 Unless excused by the court upon a showing that the respondent refuses to be present or will suffer harm if required to attend, the respondent shall be present at the hearing.3
    The general rules of evidence are applicable to proceedings to adjudicate a person disabled.4 Nonexpert witnesses may ordinarily give their opinions as to the ability of the respondent to transact ordinary business.5 However, unsubstantiated testimony of a nonexpert witnesses is insufficient to establish disability where the alleged disabled person demonstrates adequate ability to provide for his or her needs, such as by executing a power of attorney for the control of his or her estate.6 The court will determine whether a non expert witness has sufficient knowledge to express an opinion as to mental capacity at a particular time or period.7 Upon oral or written motion by the respondent or the guardian ad litem or on the court’s own motion, the court shall appoint one or more independent experts to examine the respondent.8
    The testimony of the alleged disabled person is competent.9 In a proper case, the disabled person may be examined as an adverse witness.10
    At the hearing, the court must inquire regarding:
    • the nature and extent of respondent’s general intellectual and physical functioning;11
    • the extent of the impairment of his or her adaptive behavior if he or she is a person with a developmental disability, or the nature and severity of his or her mental illness if he or she is a person with mental illness;12
    • respondent’s understanding and capacity to make and communicate responsible decisions concerning his or her person;13
    • respondent’s capacity to manage his or her estate and his or her financial affairs;14
    • the appropriateness of proposed and alternate living arrangements;15
    • the impact of the disability on the respondent’s functioning in the basic activities of daily living and the important decisions faced by the respondent or normally faced by adult members of the respondent’s community;16 and
    • any other area of inquiry deemed appropriate by the court.17
    An authenticated transcript of the evidence, taken in a proceeding concerning the alleged disabled person under the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Code,18 is admissible into evidence at the hearing.19
    In an uncontested proceeding for the appointment of a guardian, the person who prepared the report accompanying the petition20 will only be required to testify at the trial upon court order for cause shown.21
    The establishment of physical disabilities on the part of the alleged disabled person is not sufficient evidence to support a determination of disability.22
    2 Horner Probate Prac. & Estates § 35:30
     
     
    Ken Ditkowsky
    http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/

Atty Ken Ditkowsky fights the ARDC’s mission to sanitize his files

One ongoing theme in probate is the sanitizing of files.  At one point about 70% of the file was missing in the Sykes case.  SO asked me why didn’t I give an accurate page count of how much of the file was missing and I gotta tell you 1) an accurate page count is not the issue when not a single page of the file should ever be missing and that’s federal crime; and 2) how can you give an accurate count of something that’s not there?  You can make an educated guess, which is what we did.

I’m not going to count pages.

So an important part of covering up tracks is to remove something from the file.

See below and what happened to KDD:

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6FbJzwtHocwU2RkamdiZFc3X28/edit?usp=sharing

 

And here is the amazing court order to remove a document from an IARDC file which indicated that the ARDC attorneys have engaged in illegal, wrongful and highly prejudicial behavior:

 

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6FbJzwtHocwU2RkamdiZFc3X28/edit?usp=sharing

It’s brazen and amazing.

More proof that an FBI agent is sorely needed on the 15th floor of the ARDC to field complaints and clean up that agency.

Famous Atty Bailey suspended for 5 years for speaking out against corruption

Every day it seems another good, honest attorney reporting on corruption is having their bar card swiped away by rigged and railroaded proceedings.

Take a look at attorney Bailey whose law license was grabbed in a one page order recently handed down by the PA Supreme Court:

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2013/10/controversial_attorney_don_bai.html

Given the fact that all the normal defenses are being ignored by the disciplinary boards:  first amendment, state constitutional amendments, internet immunity under 47 USC 230 and Elder Abuse laws which provide immunity to those reporting elder abuse, one would think it is time for the feds to step in and start cleaning up the state lawyer disciplinary boards which appear to be biased and corrupt in and of themselves.

We know the 18th floor of the Daley center needs an FBI agent in the hall with a desk for direct reporting on corruption.

Perhaps the 15th floor of One Prudential Plaza needs one too.

 

JoAnne

Illegal and wrongful actions taken against Ken and I by the IARDC.

Everyone knows that a credit report, pursuant to federal laws must have the permission of the creditor in order to pull a credit report. Yes, even government officials.  Imagine Ken’s surprise when the IARDC filed a motion to pull and destroy a certain email where an IARDC investigator was asked to pull the credit reports on “two Illinois attorneys” without their knowledge.

Here is his response:

MOTION TO DISMISS PROCEEDINGS BASED UPON DEMONSTRATED BIAS & VIOLATION OF 735 ILCS 110 & TO RECONSIDER ORDER OF OCTOBER 2, 2013 AS UNETHICAL AND WRONGFUL SPOILATION OF EVIDENCE.
 
 Now comes Kenneth Ditkowsky and states as follows:
1.  The respondent brings this Motion to Dismiss even though he is aware that such motions are not favored.   He is compelled however to bring this motion as the order entered by this panel on October 2, 2013 is so offensive to the Administration of Justice that it taints these proceedings and the entity that promulgates it.
2.  A copy of the order entered on October 2, 2013 is attached hereto and made part hereof as if set forth in detail.
3)   The IARDC claims that the document to be destroyed was inadvertently placed in the official court record.    Such a claim is offensive on its face in that the document was part of another document that was admitted into evidence.    In order for a document to be admitted into evidence the said document has to be offered into evidence by one or more of the attorney who are appearing for a party to the litigation proceeding.    In this instant case Mr. Larkin, the administrator was represented when the document was placed into evidence by two attorneys on the staff of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois. www.lardc.org.
4)  That prior to an exhibit being admitted into evidence the offering attorneys must submit the document to the opposing attorneys.    In this case there was Mr. Hyman and the respondent.
5)  That a document to be admitted must be reviewed by the trier of fact.   In this situation there were three members of the hearing panel.     They have to decide if the document is to be admitted into evidence.    There were two attorneys and one lay person on the panel.
6)  That in the case of Disciplinary Commission there is also a host of clerks, supervising attorneys, the administrator etc. who must review a document before it is entered into evidence either in whole or part.
7)   The suggestion of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois. www.lardc.org. that any part of exhibit 3 was placed inadvertently into the Court record is patently absurd as facts which everyone knows to be facts must be ignored.     Not one of the six attorneys and numerous other people who had the opportunity and the duty to review the document that this panel has ordered to be destroyed voiced any opposition to the admission of the entire exhibit 3 into evidence, or noted anything that would make the document to be inadmissible, irrelevant or otherwise of such a nature that spolitation of evidence could be justified.    In fact, upon reflection it is the memory of the respondent that the document that the IARDC and this panel desired to be destroyed was a recent addition to the official record maintained by the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois. www.lardc.org.[1]   In point of fact the said document is evidence of possible misconduct by the staff of the IARDC.
8)    That the destruction of official records in a pending case is unprecedented however, it is consistent with the general tenor of this case.      As indicated by the Farenga  (smoking gun letter – not produced as part of discovery by the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois as part of discovery even though it refers to the respondent) the gravamen of these proceedings is the respondent’s exercise of his First Amendment Rights pursuant to the United States Constitution[2].    As there has never been a delegation to the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois to regulate, impede or otherwise limit that First Amendment Rights of respondent or any other citizen, it is clear that Mr. Larkin and the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois and its panel and commission simply  lack jurisdiction to impede or hinder the respondents Constitutional Rights..
9)  That 42 USCA 1983 protects citizens from invasions of their Constitutional Rights under color of statute.    735 ILCS 110 is the State of Illinois version of the law protecting Illinois citizens from the use of proceedings such as the instant proceedings from interference with First Amendment Rights.    735 ILCS 110/5 reiterates the policy of the State of Illinois.    It is respectfully suggested that 1) Ms. Farenga’s letter,2)  the failure of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois to call as witnesses the people with actual knowledge of whether or not any or all of the statements allegedly made by the respondent were true or not, i.e. Carolyn Troepe, Gloria Sykes, Yolanda Bakken et al and 3) the order of October 2, 2013 all strongly suggest that these proceedings are being conducted for the purpose of preventing the respondent from speaking out on the now documented violation and implementation of the Established policy of the State of Illinois.   The  County of DiWitt case, states:
“An established public policy exists in Illinois to protect the elderly from abuse or harm. The Nursing Home Care Act (210 ILCS 45/1–101 et seq. (West 1996)) and the Elder Abuse and Neglect Act (320 ILCS 20/1 et seq. (West 1996)) are clear examples of the legislature’s intent to protect the elderly from neglect, abuse, and degrading treatment in nursing homes and domestic situations. Alden Nursing Center—Morrow, Inc. v. Lumpkin, 259 Ill.App.3d 1027, 1033, 198 Ill.Dec. 7, 632 N.E.2d 66, 70 (1994). *638 Further evidence of the public policy of protecting senior citizens can be found in criminal statutes that increase the classification and punishment for those crimes committed against victims over the age of 60. See 720 ILCS 5/12–4.6 (West 1996) (the offense of battery is upgraded to an aggravated battery when defendant knowingly causes bodily harm to an individual of 60 years of age or older).”   Cnty. of De Witt v. Am. Fed’n of State, Cnty., Mun. Employees, Council 31, 298 Ill. App. 3d 634, 637-38, 699 N.E.2d 163, 166 (1998)
10)     Even more compelling is the fact that by statute, the respondent’s actions are protected, to wit:
(a-7) A person making a report under this Act in the belief that it is in the alleged victim’s best interest shall be immune from criminal or civil liability or professional disciplinary action on account of making the report, notwithstanding any requirements concerning the confidentiality of information with respect to such eligible adult which might otherwise be applicable.   320 ILCS 20/4   (emphasis mine)
11)    That it is very clear to respondent that he cannot obtain a fair and impartial hearing before this panel as the criterion of ‘clear and convincing evidence’ not only has been obviated, but,  clairvoyance has been substituted for testimony, and the Rule of Law as set forth in the recent Supreme Court of the United States has been vitiated.     (Respondent’s brief specifies the particular cases and the fact that the First Amendment is the ‘core value’ of America upon which our entire democracy rests.   The importance of every institution of government being zealous in protecting the Constitutional Rights of every citizen and every attorney being a messenger  will be repeated may be offensive to the current administration of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois but it is consistent with the oath that every attorney took when he was sworn in.
12)    That as a citizen of the United States of America, fully intending to full exercise his Rights pursuant to Article 1 of the Illinois Constitution of 1970, and the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution the respondent demands that no document admitted in whole or part as evidence in these proceeds, no document referred to in whole or part in these proceedings, and/or no document garnered directly or indirectly in whole or part be altered or destroyed.   The respondent at this point in time intends to when and if he files a Civil Rights lawsuit to request as part of discovery all of the aforesaid documents and demands that they be preserved in their original form.
Wherefore the respondent prays s follows:
1)  That the order of October 2, 2013 be vacated and the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois be ordered to preserve not only the document that they sought to destroy, but all other documents that have directly or indirectly been encountered in these proceedings.  (and in particular the documents referred to in paragraph 12)
2)  That this panel having demonstrated bias by their attornment to the spoliation of documents in this case recuse itself instanter.
3)  That these proceedings and any and all related be dismissed instanter.
 


[1] It is respectfully suggested that another document that was part of the documents that the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois. www.lardc.org. sought to be admitted and were admitted into evidence does not appear to be in the official record.   That document is a Government Accounting Office report to Congress that was part of the Judge Connors deposition.
 
[2] It should be noted that the Respondent is at all times a private citizen who happens to have a law degree.   The attempt to limit his First Amendment Rights is disingereous and a violation of 42 USCA 1983.    First, the protected attorneys Adam Stern, Cynthia Farenga et al brought proceedings against the respondent to use Rule 137 to prevent him from exercising his First Amendment Rights of association and his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights to practice law and comply with Rule 137 and FRCP 11.    They were thwarted when the Appellate Court of Illinois pointed out that respondent was not before the Circuit Court that sanctioned him, and therefore the Court lacked jurisdiction.    The Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois and the hearing board improperly ignore this fact in their findings.   Nothing has changed and there is not a scintilla of evidence that the respondent is anything other than a citizen who happens to have a law degree who is complaining to law enforcement and others concerning the ‘railroading’ of senior citizens and the failure of the Court to comply with statutory mandates.
 
 
Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

It’s nearly impossible to figure out what and who is involved in Ken’s and my cases.  They are too bizarre to imagine.  Fist in response to the myriad of Ken’s dispositive motions declaring his innocence, sending more and more, even boxes and boxes of information to the IARDC protesting his innocence, they pass a rule saying “no dispolsibive motions”, even though standard court proceedings are to file a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, and then a Judgement on the pleadings or Summary Judgment motion.  This is all standard in all courts of law, EXCEPT the IARDC.

I was told that I was “unlikely” to be able to use the affirmative defenses of First Amendment, Illinois Article X on free speech, 47 USC 230 which declares internet bloggers to have immunity for the statements they publish and then the commonlaw defamation defenses of: opinion, hyperbole, fair reporting, litigation reporting.  Illinois also provides for immunity from prosecution for reporting on elder abuse, but that also seems to be ignored.

Well meaning, well intentioned people passed laws like the Illinois Elder Abuse act to prevent people from being sued when they report abuse.  In this case, it was repeatedly reported to the authorities, and they ignored the please for assistance by the Sykes family, and then this blog was created to report it to the public.

 

The public has a right to know the truth.  Mary Sykes is being exploited and abused.  Her family is abused not only by CT, but by the authorities that stand by and do nothing, and the probate court that can’t simply tell the truth and dismiss the proceedings because there truly is no jurisdiction.

I have learned so much about how to be corrupt, how to fool the system, how to twist the truth while in court and watch the judge look the other way.  But what I want to really learn is how to stop all of this.  how to restore truth, integrity and justice into the Daley Center courtrooms.   That indeed is the challenge.

It’s actually very difficult to figure out what is going on in the case, because the procedure is so bizarre, the options are so limited, and it just appears to be the same railroad developed for Mary Sykes in probate.

 

What gives?  Something is clearly going on here, and I think if we just keep asking questions, the answers will come to us all, and they won’t be very pretty.