From KKD–Where did our Beloved America and US Constitution go?

 Attached hereto is the brief that Mr. Lanre O. Amu forwarded to me.
Indeed, it is the middle of the night and I cannot sleep and upset to the core.
My beloved America has forgotten her origins, her Constitution, the words that appear on the Statute of Liberty, and her heroes.    The sacrifice of Dr. King, et al are all being washed down the drain by a ‘government agency’ (Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission) that has run amok!    The Bill of Rights and the Constitution of the United States of America have been THROWN UNDER THE BUS!
The Rule of Law has been set forth in vivid terms by the Supreme Court of the United States in the Citizen’s United, Alvarez, Brown, Ashcroft, et al.    Americans who speak out on political and/or content related subjects may do so with impunity!    Americans can even speak out against Judicial officials in an insulting, disrespectful, and horrible way.    (Mr. Amu appears not have made his statements in Court, he was not held in contempt, nor could his statements appear to be considered an attempt to bully the trier of fact or otherwise influence a Court proceeding.    All he did was voice an opinion that certain judges did not provide his clients with a fair trial)
The issue in the Amu case is not whether the words and phrases that he used were true.    The issue is not whether or not he had due respect for the Court.  (If he did demonstrated contempt of Court the Judge could have held him in contempt and in accordance with due process punished him).   The issue is whether or not Mr. Jerome Larkin of the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission can separate Mr. Amu from his liberty and property rights and in particular his right to speak out and be critical of an elected official.    JUDGES IN ILLINOIS ARE ELECTED!
Other attorneys (including me) are being disciplined by Mr. Larkin and the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission for speaking out concerning Judicial corruption and that of Mr. Larkin and the IARDC so it is clear that Mr. Amu’s situation is not unique.    Larkin has not have the temerity to try to discipline the United States Attorney for prosecution of Operation Greylord and a few other sundry Judicial officials but, ******.     Our Justice Department in Operation Greylord sent 15 attorneys to federal prison!
Our Supreme Court in a series of cases stretching back to the founding of our United States of America has ruled that only in very limited circumstances can government (including Judicial government) regulate, impede, interfere, or otherwise limit free speech.   The Citizen’s United case and the Alvarez case are the most recent and the most offended by the actions of the IARDC that Mr. Amu complains.      Mr. Amu’s brief and the IARDC’s brief make it very clear that Mr. Amu’s actions were not even close to line.     To be very blunt – the actions of Mr. Larkin and the IARDC in their prosecution of Mr. Amu for saying whatever he said concerning Judicial corruption was not only ultra vires but offensive and disrespectful to the Rule of Law.     The prosecution of Mr. Amu for speaking his mind concerning Judicial corruption in the Court was totally protected speech and the temerity of bringing a prosecution to separate Mr. Amu from his license completely wrong, un-American, and an intentional violation of Mr. Amu’s civil rights.    It was and is ultra vires and therefore a violation of 42 USCA 1983.
Mr. Amu focuses upon the fact that he believes that his words and phrases are true.     You and I and all Americans should not give a tinker’s damn if Mr. Amu’s words are true or not – it is not our right or privilege (or that of our government) to judge.    The Rule of Law in America says that Mr. Amu has the right to express his opinion whether it offends Dr. King, Mr. Larkin, Mr. Ditkowsky, Ms. Denison, President Obama, Mr. Putin, or any, other human being.
I call upon all who read this e-mail to take a moment and reflect on what America stands for and why we love her.    The actions of Mr. Larkin and the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission are shameful, wrong, and in my opinion a direct violation of the Constitution and the Rule of Law.     I for one cannot sleep when injustice and gross disrespect for the our Law is so stark!
Ken Ditkowsky

Dear Ken;

And while you cannot sleep, some of not only cannot sleep but actually wake up crying for our victims and how the IARDC dismisses our complaints out of hand.

A particularly embarrassing case for them is In re Betts (Betts, In re, 485 N.E.2d 1081, 109 Ill.2d 154, 92 Ill.Dec. 838 (Ill., 1985)) where an Illinois attorney was disciplined for NOT serving two close relatives in a guardianship case, even though he knew of their existence.  This left the case without jurisdiction (which was not mentioned in the IARDC decision).

In our case, we complain about miscreant attorneys that appoint CT, do not serve the relatives, now we have it of record that Yolanda and Kathie had no idea what was going on on Dec. 7, 2009, and they never received notice of the time, date and place 14 days in advance of Mary’s guardianship.  We complain about that to the IARDC and our complaints are dismissed, yet the miscreant attorneys who knew better–CF, AS and HW go scott free.  Even worse, PS picked up this case, got involved, did not do his Rule 137 duty as set forth by the Illinois Supreme Court, and he too is exonerated.  He did not report any of the CF, AS and HW under the case In re Betts.

The IARDC is mad at me for saying Judge Stuart, AS, CF, HW, DJS, PS are all “favored attorneys”, that there is obvious bias (which Kathie noted on the stand) that numerous other attorneys have noted, and NO, Mr. Chair, no one believes YOU that the Sykes case is just sour grapes after the dozen of attorneys that family has talked to.  I receive anonymous phone calls all the time regarding Sykes and many, many Illinois attorneys won’t go up against the IARDC because IT DOES NOT FILE ETHICS REPORTS, it does not publish salaries, it does not publish how it selects it’s tribunal members.

Numerous Greylord books noted that the IARDC did nothing during Greylord, and even prosecuted attorneys from a blue ribbon commission assembled by Mayor Richard Daley that reported the IARDC ignored numerous complaints about Greylord activities.

I cry because this isn’t just passing a few hundred dollars over the bench.  We have documented millions missing off of inventories (Sykes, Tyler, Gore, Drabik, etc.) plus the obvious violations of human and civil rights where families are ripped asunder and the elder is isolated until death by narcotics and starvation occurs (Gore and Drabik).  John Wyman’s mother suffered near daily beatings and “attitude adjustments” and a Rockford GAL and probate attorney stood by and did nothing.  They were reported to the IARDC and the IARDC did nothing.  A staffer would get into bed naked next to Mrs. Wyman and masturbate it turns out.  One of the worst nursing homes in Rockford and the Rockford GAL and probate attorney DID NOTHING but probably place more wards at that nursing home.

So I cry tears.  And I don’t sleep.  And the IARDC ruins my life, my dedication and devotion to YOU, my countless probate victims.  Of course, my career is ruined, destroyed and my nights are sleepless and filled with night terrors of how these innocent, elderly, frail victims were starved and dehydrated to death (which is a very painful death and don’t tell me the morphine patches cover up all of that), they were beaten, sexually abused, placed in the hands of individuals they specifically said they did not want to have control them (Drabik, Gore,Wyman, Sykes)

What did the IARDC say that makes the case look like a cover up?

1) Repeatedly arguing with a witness that her aunt’s sordid case was just “sour grapes”, giving no credence, sympathy, empathy or true understanding of the situation.  Like looking into the empty eyes of a soul less alien entity devoid of compassion.  Why was I the only one in the court room crying over the severe, repeated, gross and disgusting injustices.

2) Asking one or more witnesses how many supporters there were of Gloria, family and friends.  The witness had to admit to protests in the Daley center with picket signs bearing the name Mary Sykes, probate court and Judge Stuart.

3) Telling me when they asked about how I investigated cases, that they did not care about Rockford, only Cook County (why, are you only going to cover up for Crook County?  The Rockford courts are on their own, no honor among miscreants?

It doesn’t really matter what my Tribunal does.  I hope they will do the right thing and acquit me of all charges, but they don’t have a very good track record on First Amendment rights (Peel — where all the attorney wanted to do was list his truthful certifications on his letterhead, SCOTUS said that was covered by the First Amendment),

The IARDC still needs to do the right thing.  They needs to tell the miscreants to dismiss the Sykes case and settle with Gloria and her family for damages in that case.

Ken compares the ratty nursing homes that the elderly are sent to to the Gulags or “attitude ajustment” camps in Russia.

But there is a whole long history of people not speaking out and preventing harm.

The T4 program in Nazi Germany instructs us accordingly.

It started with one couple writing to Hitler to ask if they could have their deformed, deaf and blind son euthanized.  Hitler said yes, and more couples with deformed children started writing to him, so he started the T4 Action program to rid Germany of of deformed, useless children. (the following is from Wiki,

Like others I have written of, Drabik and Gore who were elderly and frail, children did not protest their own deaths, they did not resist, they did not require restraints. So T4 was expanded to older children, pre teens and then even adolescents.  But by then, the older children and teens would sometimes protest and require restrains as they were poisoned by injection with muscle relaxants which stopped the heart and lungs.  That is when the doctors (yes, T4 undoubtedly involved hundreds, if not thousands of cooperative licensed MD’s and nurses and administrative staff–college educated, licensed professions), developed “the most important discovery” that carbon monoxide can do dozens, and then hundreds of undesirable and incurable patients in asylums and hospitals in one batch, and they were then quickly cremated and the family was sent a death notice the patient “unfortunately” died of made up maladies such as pneumonia, appendicitis, infections, etc.   You name it, these docs spent all day making it up and putting it on a form because “they were told to.”  More and more patients were then classified “T4”.

The most important point of T4?  Out of all the doctors, nurses, college educated hospital staff, NOT ONE OF THEM PUBLICLY PROTESTED.  At one point, in one town, some angry teens who figured out the busloads of patients transferred to hospitals that never left and the crematoria spewing out ashes and bits of human hair, did assemble together and publicly protest.

Hitler was careful to avoid towns that were heavily Catholic due to the deep ingraining  of the sanctity and blessedness of human life.  T4 and the concentration camps were run without a single directive from Hitler in writing.  In fact, one judge threatened a local T4 program noting there was no law, no directive from Hitler and therefore it could not continue.  He was quickly removed from the bench.

But for the most part NO doctors or nurses publicly protested T4.  It is likely if T4 had been stopped in its tracks Hitler could not have proceeded to 6 million healthy Jews not in asylums or hospitals. (Imagine that, a hospital where you go to be evaluated for T4 and then killed if you qualify).  Only ONE doctor reclassified all his patients as outside of T4 and saved them all.  Only ONE.  Like Schindler, though, they did not publicly protest.

So I’m saying it now, and I’m saying it loud and clear to the IARDC and ANY state or federal agencies that will listen–Grandma and Grandpa are becoming nursing home victims to cronyism and a program of “not corruption” so attorneys cannot publicly protest.  I can’t used the word “corrupt” according to my trial, so I won’t.  I’m not supposed to tag anything “corruption” so I will start lying and tag everything “not corruption”.  (Note with tags, this doesn’t work, tags pick up individual words)  (Also note with tags, if you google Ken or myself with the word “corruption” we pop up too.  AND I DON’T CARE.  Tag me with corruption, make the reader read.)

It was not until late in the T4 program and by then the concentration camp program that a German Cardinal finally read aloud a letter protesting forced euthanasia and reaffirming the sanctity of life that protests began among German catholics and the letter was read aloud in all the German churches eventually and protests in German started to take off.  But by then it was simply too late.  A deeply entrenched machine had already flourished for years. Jews and other undesireables were already being sent to their deaths by the bus loads.  Only the end of the war would stop this machine.

So I stand here today and I will trash my law license so that this T4 program with grandma and grandpa will go no further.  Many have gone to the ARDC, the federal and state authorities with credible cases and plenty of evidence and were completely ignored.  T4 was implemented, condoned and covered up by attorneys in the Drabik and Gore cases.

Remember, T4 started with infants.  Our seniors are just as vulnerable.

Just say NO to T4 in the US.  Say NO to involuntary euthanasia for elders. Say NO to elder cleansing and elder trafficing.  Whatever you call it, it’s just plain wrong and people, and especially attorneys must blog and must protest.

Human life and human rights ARE sacred.  They are blessed.  The elderly are a blessing to us, even if they are 95, 100 or more years old.  They are not to be targeted, fleeced and killed off.

Go ahead, ARDC, make me a martyr.  Make me a poster child.


A very well drafted letter from Judy Ditkowsky asks, “Why did the GAL’s threatening KDD when all he wants to do is investigate?”

Dear Readers;

Mrs. Ditkowsky has been kind enough to share her very well drafted letter with us on this blog.  In it, the letter asks the most important question underlying the case, why do the GAL’s in a Probate proceeding threaten a third party attorney for merely investigating an alleged wrongful guardianship?

Inquiring minds want to know.

As an attorney, or even an outsider, it doesn’t take much to know that when one is threatened, there is assuredly a fat, thick, scab to pick that probably contains a good amount of pus and infection.  I’m not a criminal atty, but at least I know that one.

Read on for some very interesting news.  I never heard the entire story about the “threats”, I know the ARDC did not want the entire story to come out, so this is very interesting.


Dear Senator ______,
RE:  Attorney SANCTIONED for SEEKING TO PROTECT A NINETY YEAR OLD LADY from severe repression of her civil and human rights!
My husband, Kenneth Ditkowsky, was threatened three years ago, that if he continued to represent the interests of a large group of relatives, personal friends and neighbors in their concern for the ongoing health and safety of a ninety year old lady, he would be hauled before the Court for sanctions and also the Illinois ARDC.  At that point, he had done nothing but investigate what their complaint entailed.  I personally was present in my husband’s office when the two telephone calls in which attorney Peter Schmiedel and Guardian ad litem Adam Stern made these threats, and heard them, because he put the calls on speakerphone specifically so that I would hear them.  Ken had done nothing improper, and therefore threat of attorney sanctions were totally improper.
 However, the threats were not made in vain.  Within a year, Ken had been sanctioned, and within six months thereafter, these same sanctions were vacated by the Appellate Court, as having been issued totally without jurisdiction.  Ken had been ordered (by the Circuit Court which incidentally had no jurisdiction) not to represent the ninety one year old lady and he NEVER had done so.  He had, however, as an attorney bound by the Himmel rule, continued to report violations of her civil rights.  He did so continuously, as there was no evidence that his reports had been taken seriously, and he widened the circle to whom the reports were made.  He also had a responsibility as a citizen to take action for the protection of a person whose rights were covered under Federal Statute and the fourteenth and fourth and fifth amendments to the US Constitution.  He had his own rights under the U.S. and the Illinois Constitution of Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Association, and the Right to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances (the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the first Article of the Illinois Constitution).
 Then step three was taken by attorney Schmiedel and Guardian ad litem Stern, now joined by Guardian ad litem Farenga.  Amazingly, fifteen counts that Ken had misbehaved were brought by the attorney for the administrator of the Illinois ARDC. I use the term misbehaved advisedly.  The fifteen counts met no criterion of specificity.  Under the U.S. Constitution, a defendant has the right to know exactly what he is being accused of, but the attorney for the administrator ADMITTED in her response to the motion to dismiss that she had no idea what lies, deceptions, or interferences with the administration of justice had actually taken place other than that emails had been sent .
 Suffice it to say that the hearing officers attorned completely to the actions of the ARDC and subjected my husband to a hearing.  The hearing officer announced that two days and two days only were allotted to this hearing, and then allowed the prosecution to meander on until after four p.m. on the second day.  Under the U.S. Constitution, how can a defense be limited to less than an hour of a business day, perhaps a hearing going to late in the evening of a weekend day?  Beyond that, apparently there was some “underlying case” which could not be referred to.  The “underlying case” could only have been the matter about which the supposed lies, deceptions and  “interference with justice” were made.
Despite these obstacles, under oath the prosecution witnesses made significant admissions that they did not follow mandated procedures prescribed by state statute to protect the civil rights of their ward.  Furthermore, while each retained the title of Guardian ad Litem after what was a VOID Plenary Guardianship according to the mandatory provisions of the State Statute, neither undertook to actually perform the duties assigned to a Guardian ad Litem, which are to protect the interest of the ward against malpractice by the Plenary Guardian, but instead invented non-existent duties which were to the detriment of their ward. The statement UNDER OATH by Cynthia Farenga was that in most cases the duties of the Guardian ad Litem are over in a few months, while in this case the Guardianship she has been awarded has extended for over three years.  Does this mean that Ken has “interfered” with justice by making it possible for Mary Sykes to remain alive at the age of ninety three, having been kidnapped just before her birthday of nine decades under color of statute, been kept  isolated from her family and friends, and been consigned to “elder day care”, having lost the comfort of her own home and the waste of all her assets?
There are two CD’s, taken a year apart, of Mary Sykes, after her incarceration under false pretenses in a home and daycare center. Neither shows the feeble-minded individual SWORN TO UNDER OATH by attorney Adam Stern. The first was taken a year after the kidnap occurred; the second, shows the ravages of two years spent under hostile conditions; yet Mrs. Sykes is still aware of her situations, her companion(s) and is lucid. In addition, independent observers of  Mrs. Sykes have occasionally seen her at family events and have reported that she has been cogent; there has been no investigation permitted of Guardian Ad Litem’s sworn statement at ARDC hearing, that in his initial interview with Mrs. Sykes, there was no question of her incompetency. Mrs. Sykes is prevented from using the telephone to contact her relatives, but on the very day of the hearing, one was able to speak to her while her captor was not present and Mrs. Sykes was lucid and cognizant of whom she was speaking to (also, she was certainly aware of how to pick up and answer a telephone)  despite her advanced age and the nearly complete isolation from all her family except for the plenary guardian, the guardian’s husband, and the granddaughter and the consignment to a day care center offering no intellectual stimulation, much less rehabilitative activity.
 The General Accounting Office in 2010 issued a report of the nationwide abuses of the rights to life, liberty and property of elderly people.  Has this report been placed into the circular file?  It is up to our elected Senators and Representatives to stand up for the citizens of the United States who have had the nerve to live past the Soylent Green age of thirty and for those who who have had the nerve to care about the rights of their fellow citizens in the face of the actions herein complained of!
 Mr. Ditkowsky has spent untold time, energy and material resources in the fight to free Mary Sykes.  He has exposed, UNDER THE OATHS OF THE PROSECUTION’S WITNESSES in the process of this ARDC hearing, numerous instances of egregious disregard of statutes, court decisions, the U.S. Constitution and the Illinois Constitution.  Under the most adverse of circumstances, his defense was able to show the TRUTH of the statements he has been making.  He was able to bring into evidence even more evidence of the truth of the statements he has been making.
 Nevertheless, the hearing panel did not consider any of this evidence but made their determination before leaving the building, as an order of misconduct was issued first thing the following Monday morning.
 Please be advised that Mr. Ditkowsky has never been accused of mistreating the elderly; he has been sanctioned and his reputation impaired for over two years for OPPOSING the mistreatment of one very feisty and resilient old lady. Isaiah, chapter 58 is quoted yearly at this time that the Lord does not care about fasting and sackcloth when innocents are being abused.  The armada of Government, however, in this case, is being employed to destroy the reputation of one who believes in the words of the Prophets, of the U.S. Constitution and of the Illinois Constitution, federal and state judiciary and laws and statutes.
 I am writing to you in the sincere hope that an investigation into the conduct of this entire matter over a period of over three years will be ordered.  This situation begins with the first attempt to chill any investigation into the circumstances of an almost ninety year old lady, on whose behalf almost twenty friends, neighbors, relative and fellow club members signed a petition and raised money for a retainer to pay my husband to look into the legal issues raised by what then seemed like a miscarriage of justice. It has continued through to the actions of the Attorney Registration and Discipline Committee which refused to dismiss an incompetent Motion for sanctions and in which its hearing officers issued an order of misconduct without taking the time to address any of the evidence allowed into the case as a result of the lines of questions introduced by the prosecution, which showed without a shadow of a doubt that neither the Guardians ad Litem nor the plenary Guardian were appointed in accordance with Illinois Statutes, decisions of appellate ( both federal and state) courts, or decisions of the United States Supreme court, in clear derogation of every free speech, right of association and right to petition for redress of grievances of the government.  Please investigate how this can happen in 2012 in The United States of America!
I apologize for the length and detail of this letter.
Judith Ditkowsky
Dear Judy;
You have absolutely nothing to apologize for.  I loved your letter.  Tomorrow I am going to try to help John Wyman and test the meddle of the Probate Court in Rockford.  Soon as it is over, I will find the nearest Starbucks and give you all the results.
thanks again for your kind sharing and understanding.

Let’s see which Probate Court does better–Rockford or the 18th floor of the Daley Center

Dear Readers

As you may or may not know, John Howard Wyman has written an excellent book on the Probate court in Rockford, and his harrowing experiences there.  If you don’t have a copy, please go out and get a copy.  Out of stress and strife, John Wyman has done a great deal of good by writing a book on his experiences in order to help YOU, the people who have been denied justice in an Illinois Probate Court.

While I am not going to provide you with much comment on this case because there’s no reason–the pleadings speak for themselves, I did want make sure you have the pleadings in case you face a similar situation.  Therefore, I am publishing all the documents in that case, namely,

John’s original Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (Sodini)

JHW – Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction – filed Aug 31, 2012

Attorney Sharon Rudy’s Brief in Response

SRR – Response to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction – filed Sept 14, 2012

My Reply Brief, filed yesterday:

JMD Reply Brief–Motion to Dismiss, Lack of Jurisdiction (Soldini)
The transcript from the last hearing in which I argued that the Motion to Dismiss IS in fact an emergency because everyday someone lives under a guardianship without jurisdiction is a day she has been deprived of life, liberty, property, human rights and civil rights without due process of law, which is a constitution violation under the US and Illinois state constitutions.

Transcript of hearing 8/31/12 re Emergency Motion to Dismiss or Nonsuit due to lack of Jurisdiction.

I will be ordering all the transcripts today.

I am also publishing the hearing date, time and place of September 28th, Court room 217, 400 West State St, Rockford Illinois, Judge Fabiano  at 11:00 am so all the Probate groups can come out and watch and publish.  This should be a major victory for the Probate groups.  If the Honorable Judge Fabiano does her job, this should be a dismissal/nonsuit QED.

Judge Fabiano will be our heroine.  She can then tell all the other Illinois probate judges to carefully check and question that all adult children, siblings and parents have been given notice of the date, time and place of hearing, in writing, 14 days in advance of the hearing.



I am publishing this because PLEADINGS SHOULD BE PUBLIC.  The Rockford Court house has been given about 80 million dollars so far to get their court records computerized, and so far, nada.  Attys cannot upload, the public cannot download and the system, like the Cook County system, is an electronic dinosaur.

I hope to also get all the transcripts and publish them for you in the Rockford case.

While I am actively involved in the case, I will refrain from commenting on it, you can still get the book (on Amazon), and read the pleadings and transcripts because I intend to do the job of the Illinois county courts and make them all public, as they should be.


PS – If you are having any problems opening the above links, try downloading the software for Google Drive–just google it.  If that does not work, please email me and I will try to help.

Summary of Procedural Errors in In Re Mary Sykes

From KDD:

I wonder if another letter to Judge Evans, Judge Stuart, the two Illinois Senators, the Judicial Inquiry Board, the ARDC. Gov Quinn and the Chief Judge of the Illinois Supreme Court might cause a stir!

Maybe you could ask as a concerned citizen how the actions in the Sykes case can be reconciled with the Sodini case.   For instance the Petition does not comply with the statute.   It is missing the names several people who are required to be named;  i.e., Mary’s two sisters.    The petition requires the disclosure of ‘powers of attorney’.   There are none.   755 ILCs 11a – 7.   Of course 755 ILCS 11a -10 (f) requires service on the ‘near’ relatives.   These are Gloria and her two aunts.   Neither was served.
If we get more basic, how come the proceeding was brought in Cook County – at the time of the filing Mary was residing in DuPage County.    (755 ILCS 11a -3)   The statute uses the world ‘shall!’
Sodini mandates that these technicalities are jurisdictional.   No jurisdiction means no valid court orders could issue after Dec. 7, 2009.
If you look at section 18, the treatment of a disabled person is mandated – Isolating a disabled person from her younger daughter, he siblings, her friends, her activities is beyond the scope of authority.   Indeed, the statute appears (section 18) is very clear that the plenary guardian is specifically prohibited from denying a disabled person her liberty, her property, her civil rights and her human rights.    The affidavit of Mr. Evans that was attached to my answer demonstrates how perverted the process has become in Illinois.
What is scary is the fact that if the process that was followed in Gore, Tyler, Wyman and Sykes as examples were to be followed in the case of Romney or Obama each of our presidential candidates could have Carolyn Toerpe as their plenary guardian.   Adam Stern could then and there tell the Court that Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney did not wish attorneys, Dr. ****** or **** could testify that he administered the mini-mental examination and combined Mr Romney and Mr. Obama scored 12 out of 44 and therefore neither has the capacity to care for themselves and need ReHab assist to look out for them 24/7.     Cynthia Farenga can tell the Court with the same degree of certainty that she exhibited in the Sykes case that Mr. Obama was delusional when he said that he was the President of the United States and Mr. Romney has a vivid imagination when he claimed to have been nominated by those imaginary Republicans to be their nominee.   After all – it is unethical to confuse her with the facts – she has made up her mind, and besides everyone knows that there are no Republicans in Cook County.
In all seriousness we need an ‘honest’ comprehensive and complete investigation now!    I really would have trouble with Mr. Obama having Carolyn as his plenary guardian.
Ken Ditkowsky

From Cynthia Farenga– A special Request to Stop Helping her out

Dear Readers;
As you may or may not recall, [a special person] sent me a email whining there were “a lot of conflicts in the case” and she had no one to help her out.  Poor [entity].

So what did I do?  JoAnne to the rescue.  I drafted her a very nice Emergency Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction/Lack of Jurisdiction and emailed it to her and posted it here.

One would think she would say, “thanks for all the help, I appreciate it.”
But not [this entity].  See her response below.

take care


From: [special person]
Sent: Aug 1, 2012 2:03 PM
To: JoAnne M Denison
Subject: cease and desist

I did not authorize you to prepare such a pleading in my name. Cease and desist from preparing and/or publishing pleadings that I did not author in my name.
[special person]

My Response to her:

From: JoAnne M Denison <>
Cc: ken ditowsky <>, Annie Zhou <>
Subject: Re: cease and desist? Are you kidding? This the US and we have a free press here!
Date: Aug 1, 2012 2:21 PM

Dear [special person];

There is a disclaimer on the blog that no one is to believe anything was filed or not filed, or anything was prepared or not prepared and I don’t represent anyone involved in the Sykes case right on one of the front pages.

I believe I have a first amendment right to publish what I want and when I want.  I believe Ken has already treated you to a litany of First Amendment right cases where people get to publish whatever they want.

I am no longer on the case.  You disqualified me and ruined my relationship with my client with the severe disparagement from that one action, which as you are aware was bogus and wrongful in nature.

I will not forfeit my First Amendment Rights simply because YOU demand it.  I will write about and comment all I want on the Sykes case no 09 P 4585.

Any interference from you (or whining) will be taken as an action prohibited under the Illinois Citizen’s Participation Act.

Further, you whined at me you “had no help” in an email due to “so many conflicts”–so I helped you with the best thing you could ever do.

This is ONE AREA–jurisdiction–where there is no conflict amongst any of the attorneys involved.

And don’t get Ken going, he will send you and make you a list of dozens of first amendment rights cases from the Pentagon Papers, to Alvarez, to a litany of cases where people get to publish what they want and when they want.

If I were still on the case, I might be limited by my representation of Gloria, but you decided to file a Motion to Disqualify me which was rubber stamped by Judge [x].

So my participation in the case is as an officer of the court, and as member of the free press of the US.  You should note that my posts, cross posts and second blog are soon reaching 10,000 views.

I strongly urge you to file and present to the court that document I prepared for you on AN EMERGENCY BASIS.  Then the tide will turn and the next 10,000 views can be on a favorable basis.



Updates about the Court banning the use of laptops

A couple of weeks ago, JoAnne Denison sent a fax to Kevin Connelly (Head of security at the Daley Center) and Judge Evans. Just a quick recap, the fax basically talked about Judge Stuart banning the use of laptops in her courtroom, which is a direct violation of everything a democratic society should stand for.

To no one’s surprise, there has been no response to that fax. No explanation, no discussion, nothing. So of course, JoAnne sent another fax to them today. Let’s see how long they will ignore this one (link provided below)!

JoAnne’s fax to Judge Evans

A complete list of all files in Mary G Sykes case. Please note all the missing documents

Below is a table of the files on the Mary G Sykes case that were found in Judge Stuart’s courtroom. Most of the 2009 files were copies obtained from Ken’s office, not where the main file is. Why is that? Some of the Court orders are also missing, additionally, most of the files filed by Joanne are also removed from the file.

sykes docket sheet