For all of you out there that have been waiting for my blog trial–a trial that consists of nothing but an attorney blogging about probate and other legal issues on a real time basis with real thoughts and feeling and impressions, unvarnished and fully raw, for some reason I received an Order in the mail, no trial for me or this blog next week!

A welcome relief since there are many, many things to do for a 4 day trial.  And I’m not even sure it will not run longer than that with all my evidence–4 fact witness, Gloria, Scott, Yolanda and Kathie that are willing to come and testify the blog is the truth, then 4 or more expert witnesses–Atty Ken Ditkowsky on constitutional law, Bev and Ken Cooper on running a blog and local area weekly cable show, John Howard Wyman, the author of a popular and highly rated probate victim book — Against Her Will, available on Amazon, Sylvia Rudek from NASGA.  All highly excellent and competent witnesses who will confirm that what I say, as unbelievable as it may seem, is not only accurate, but has been and is currently experienced by many, many people across the nation! Mary Sykes is not alone and I am not crazy.  What I relate to you, my dear reads is not fiction or imagination.

But what caused all this?  No one said, but here is what happened last week.

On October 15, 2013, both parties were to file their Motions in Limine (pre trial motions) and exhibits.  My clerk was suddenly out of the office, his father suddenly and unexpectedly died, so I filed by mail.  I used the same exhibits I used in the Gloria-Scott-Yolanda-Kathie deposition and just added one more, a $60,000 tax lien that was found on [an entity’s] property.  Hmm, this is indeed a serious ethical violation.  So maybe that is a problem.

On Thursday, Oct. 18, 2013, I received a large box of documents from [an entity] which purported to contain 33 exhibits and 10 Motions in Limine to bar all my witnesses and exhibits–an excessive and abusive amount, if you ask me.

Curiously, when I look at what was actually included, there was in fact only ONE motion in limine to bar KDD, and the other motions, nos. 2 to 10 were missing!

So right away I call and fax [the entities] warning them–Houston, we have a problem.

No response.  So Monday I call up the ARDC and talk to the clerk’s offices.  Yes, she confirms the filing she has only has one motion in limine to bar KDD, and the rest are missing from her copy.  I ask for her name, and I think she said [***}, so I ask her to spell it out and rather than do that she says I should speak to [an authority] and she puts me thru without answering!

[an entity] actually answers the phone, but it is weird.  I identify myself and start to ask about the box of documents, but she starts excitedly demanding “how did I get through?”  “you’re only supposed to go to voice mail”  “I don’t want to talk to you because you always turn things around on me when I talk to you on the phone.”  which is indeed very interesting because I have never spoken [this entity] on the phone before this, I only spoke to her once before at my deposition.

She must be a little excited today, I figure.

In any case, here is my fax to her:

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6FbJzwtHocwclRYclVxYlpQWVk/edit?usp=sharing

and here is the only one Motion in Limine that I got from her and she never sent along the others:

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6FbJzwtHocwR1dmcklBcGtZS1U/edit?usp=sharing

and here is the order to reset the trial dates, mailed to me and no one had the decency to call me on Monday:

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6FbJzwtHocwWUl5aEtmbjJxNWc/edit?usp=sharing

So let’s wait until Oct. 28, 2013 when we are supposed to have another conference call with the tribunal and see what happens.

thanks

joanne

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Oct 21, 2013 6:31 AM
To: Reporter 1, Reporter 2,  “IllinoisLawyerNow@isba.org” , “illinois.ardc@gmail.com”
, “60m@cbsnews.com” <60m@cbsnews.com>, “tips@tribune.com” , SUNTIMES , “chicagotonight@wttw.com” , “jdenison@surfree.com”
Subject: Illinois [authority] investigation

http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/

And I would personally like to thank the investigative reporters who are donating their time and efforts to spend countless hours pouring over information and analyzing it for review.  Of course, the information will have to be carefully preserved so it does not “disappear” or “suddenly changes” like transcripts in probate.

We are hoping to find some relief for these families and probate victims. So far, the system and authorities continue to ignore their pleas, yet heaping another level of abuse upon these poor innocent victims.

Any help or information anyone can donate will be greatly appreciated.

I am going to trial next week on this blog.  I don’t take it personally.  I am not the blog and the blog is not me.  It is a living, breathing, collection of thoughts, experiences, opinions and information donated over this past 16 months from a wide variety of readers and fans.  I am only one small part in it.  You channel your concerns, your past problems, abuses and troubles here.  I understand that and respect that.  I am only your channel and I am not what you are or who you are.  I am most certainly not what the [the authorities] wants me to be, but they have not submitted any input into this blog.   The blog speaks honesty and the truth and it is what the relevant marketplace wants and it is the truth.

Let’s see if the [authorities] do.

Dear Readers;

As my trial quickly approaches, and the “funny stuff” continues (KDD has a strange email in his exhibits that “must be struck” because it instructs IARDC investigators to pull credit reports on “two Illinois” attorneys, etc.–which is illegal) and we’re starting to pull pubic records (unlike this IARDC we do not pull clandestine credit reports without written authorization from anyone), reporters are asking me what they consider “typical” questions about who and what the IARDC is, and you know what?  I’ve come to realize, what I thought was true wasn’t.

For example, we have previously published that the IARDC apparently isn’t in compliance with state laws requiring annual ethics/financial reports.  We talked to the Sec. of State where they are to go, the IARDC itself and most of the attorneys we have contacted, were rude about it yet admitted they did not do this.

Who is running this place?  Atty Jerome Larkin through SO and MS is the atty that initiates all of  the pleadings filed against myself and Ken, but I have googled for that information and a reporter has asked, but we have yet to find his ethics/reporting disclosure.

Is there a reason for this?

And then, after smelling that fish that appears to be old and stinky, we ask who are these people and how are they “appointed” as declared on their website.  Are they appointed by one party or both? Does the IARDC comply with the Shakman rule that requires a state organization must not hire based upon politics.  I spoke with Atty Shakman, who appears to be the expert in this area and he says he knows nothing about the IARDC and Shakman compliance.

So, who are these people?  How did they come by their jobs, and most important, what salaries do they make?  Other state websites report on salaries paid (google Illinois state employee salaries, the Illinois Controller publishes the checks she writes–good for her–and Gov. Quinn publishes–good for him).  After all the IARDC does not hold a bake sale to regulate the professional licenses of attorneys.  And you know if you want to control money and power, start with the attorneys, for sure.  That’s what the Nazis did.  They learned from prior totalitarian regimes to kick out any law provider that might oppose one’s fascist policies, leaving the people powerless to fight for their rights and for the court system to become a non-entity in a tripartite government system that is supposed to have checks and balances built in (executive, legislative and judicial branches)

The IARDC has no transparency in this area.  It does not publish salaries (though I have heard they are in the reasonable range of $50,000 to about $180,000 for the jobs there).  They are said to have about 50 employees, then they have non paid Inquiry Board (that votes on whether to file a complaint), a non paid Tribunal (that hears disciplianry complaints) and a Review Board that approves decisions made by the Tribunals.

But if there is no transparency, and we don’t know how these 50+ people are selected and we don’t ask them to do yearly ethics and financials disclosures, then no matter how many levels you can dream up to “look authentic” pack it with your friends and co-conspirators, you are left with something that is dysfunctional at it’s very roots.

Maybe I grew up in Chicago, have read the Chicago Tribune and Suntimes for decades and seen dozens and dozens of politicians, judges and lawyers going to club fed med for outright bribes, payola and “pay to play” schemes I’m just paranoid and skeptical.  BUT if there is really transparency at the IARDC, they would publish salaries, they would publish they are in compliance with Shakman and show how that is, they would publish.

The [this agency] annual report for 2012 is published on their website.  It does not talk about ethics/financial disclosures (some employees at the [this agency] have told us they are exempt because they are a private organization and not part of the state at all–but they regulate a public monopoly–law licenses), some attorneys were upset they were not told they had to do this when they looked up the law, others were rude and slammed the phone down.

I guess if you talk enough about other’s unethical behavior and post rules for everyone else, that can easily hide the fact you don’t do the same.

I challenge the IARDC today to do the right thing and publish those reports online for each employee for each year they worked at the IARDC.  If it’s a bad report, so be it.  Also, they should publish annual salaries and how much has been paid to each employee for past years.

THEN, if all that turns out okay, then they will be qualified to judge ME.

But watch and see, they won’t do that, they will charge ahead.

And that’s exactly the type of behavior everyone on the probate blogs is questioning.

JoAnne

The answer:  1) When someone put a document in your file which is an email to one of your staff asking they “pull credit reports on two Illinois attorneys” (when you have no written authorization from them, and this is a violation of federal law), and

2)  when every other attorney who is an office holder, a judge, in a judicial position, on a board, commission and the like, but for some reason you and your office and staff do not file the requisite annual “Report of Economic Interests” online with the Secretary of State in response to an Ethics Law revised in 2009!

That’s when.

Ken pointed this out to me today that the request to destroy an important document in a file and make sure neither you nor your staff is reporting annually on “Economic Interests” is just like taking the 5th amendment, right?

Their rule:  If you break the law, do NOT tell anyone.

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Oct 14, 2013 9:40 PM
To: “janet_c_phelan@yahoo.com”
Cc: JoAnne Denison , “lawrence@Lhyman.com” , Eric Holder , Harry Heckert , j ditkowsky , Tim NASGA , NASGA , probate sharks , , jim , “ACLU@ACLU.ORG”
Subject: Re: F2F–Radio segment on government attorneys violating law, shutting down ethical lawyers

The winner will get a Whole Food $20 gift card if they also can document they told the [an agency] this too at the same time.

If you go to the website: http://www.ilsos.gov/economicinterest/economicinterest

You will see where you can get a copy of all the ethics reporting forms filed with the Secretary of State in relation to the Government Ethics Act of 2009 where 900 state agencies and boards and offices have to file an annual detailed Ethics Form.

There is a pull down menu, so I thought I would look for all the agencies, boards, offices and positions that an attorney can or must hold.

I cam up with this list from the pull down menu:

1) attorney general

2) states attorney appellate prosecutor

3) candidate for:  — appellate court judges

4)                           — supreme court judge

5)                           — attorney general

6)  Judicial Inquiry Board (staff, I presume)

7)  Judicial Inquiry Board Member

8)  Professional Registration Committees and Boards (IDPR)

9) State Appellate Defender

10) State Appellate Prosecutor.

Yep, you would think that would cover all those attorneys out there that should file a 3 page form to show they don’t do unethical things like get bribes from lobbyists, have others take out or pay off their mortgages, give them interesting things–like cash.

So, who is missing from the list?  First accurate answer gets the $20 gift card.

How is it all these other attorneys and agencies are on this list, and the judges do extremely detailed reports to the Ill. Supreme Ct. under Ill. Sup. Ct. Rule 68.

Who or what is giving this group of about 50+ attorneys who are in charge of a very powerful agency, a complete pass.  Like free parking money.  Like go around the board over and over for free and collect $200.

Who is doing this?