From Marty Phren–some compliments

Aside

 

Marty Prehn
Marty Prehn 8:45pm Aug 5
You are an inspiration as is Ken. May our sisters burn in hell for what they have done.
Marty Prehn
Marty Prehn 12:01pm May 22
I was not sure if you had seen the coverage that you got at this event. How goes the fight?
Fighting Scammers Who Prey on the Elderly

TROY (My TV 20 News at 10) – These are supposed to be their “golden years.” That’s not the case with…

Aside

From: JoAnne M Denison <jdenison@surfree.com>
To: kenneth ditkowsky <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2014 11:31 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: SAVE OUR Girls

excellent okay to post?  you bring up a great issue and that is, if we are actually going to TREAT the poor and make everyone buy health insurance as part of Obama care (mexicans are the worst offenders), we will have to eliminate health care fraud to afford this program.  I believe the $150 million fine to Omnicare and the recent 6 cit sting by the feds arresting 95 medical professionals is a great start.

Health care fraud means that those who actually NEED health care, children, pregnant women, the elderly and those actually sick, aren’t getting it.  And for those that do, due to the ever pervasive unchecked fraud, the cost is astronomical.

thanks

joanne
—–Original Message—–
From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: May 17, 2014 9:14 AM
To: “whistleblower@spinwatch.org” , “whistleblowers@defraudingamerica.com” , “PRESIDENT@messages.whitehouse.gov” , Eric Holder , matt senator kirk , Harry Heckert , j ditkowsky , NASGA , probate sharks , JoAnne Denison , jim , Martin Kozak , Eric Blair , “truthbetoldradio@gmail.com” , Janet Phelan
Subject: Fw: SAVE OUR Girls

 
 If there is going to be any health care reform there has to be a real crackdown on health care fraud.   This means that the war on the elderly and the disabled has to be ended.   The judicially appointed guardians who have been elder cleansing have to be sent to jail.  
 
Cases like Sykes are a disgrace!  The relationship of Judge Jane Stuart to the President is an incentive for the Obama Administration be upfront (and distance itself from the perfidy that she presided over) and to lead to eradicate the cottage industry that has developed and is denying senior citizens of their liberty, their property, their civil rights, and their human rights.  
 
It is my assumption that the President put all his efforts into Obamacare in an effort to make it a success.   Obamacare – and any other health care program= will fail, unless the fortuitous health care frauds are brought under control.   The president has more enemies among those who claim to support him than he has among those who actively support him.  
 
Let me explain.   Many of his supporters are in the legal profession.   Quess who are the people who support the war on the elderly and the disabled?   Right here in Illinois the guardianship scandal soon will be public is aided and abetted by Judges.  The president’s neighbor Jane Stuart presided over the Sykes case!   Judges appointed by his own party are ‘party’ to such events as the mining of Alice Gore’s teeth for their gold filings!    Jerome Larkin and the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary commission are carving a name for themselves in infamy by assaulting the First Amendment.
 
Lets a step deeper.   The nursing home industry provides him and his party with zillions of dollars.   Walk thru their halls.   Do you see the people in wheel chairs!    Medicare is paying for them to sit there – the nursing homes call that physical therapy.   Yes, it is an improvement from lying in one’s own urine ******.   Do you see that Lexus that slowed as it drove by the facility – that is Dr ****.   Medicare just got billed for his visit to the 300 patients in the facility – that was ****’s physical examination and his consultation with patent *****.  
 
President Obama did not fall off the turnip truck last night – he knows of should know the situation better than me; however, this is his legacy and his signature program.   I, like 50% of America, will gain recognition by knowingly sitting on my GM and being critical – The President and his staff gain nothing by not being pro=active.   
 
Let me humbly and respectfully suggest:  1) Mr. Holder is active in pursuing the Hospice scandal (kickbacks) in Florida as well as the Omicare prosecutions.   Why do we hear absolutely nothing about the 147 million dollar fine of Omicare?  Why do we hear nothing of the investigation of the kickbacks in relation to Ms. Esformes, Mr. N et al?
2)GAL Adam Stern had a tax lien filed against him by the IRS.   Stern is one of the miscreants in the Sykes case.   In that case about a million dollars in gold coins was stolen by the plenary guardian and not a coin was inventoried.   Obvious the IRS is doing something – why do we hear nada concerning the attempts by the IRS to collect the taxes due on the stolen monies?    Is the IRS giving Carolyn Toerpe a Pass?   Is 18 USCA 371 not applicable to Stern, Farenga, Schmiedel, Larkin et al.
 
In short – we as citizens believe that the President is doing more than joyriding on his big airplane and begging for campaign donations from the miscreants who want something from him.  Or do we?   
 
At the very least – it would be nice to see an FBI agent visit Mr. Jerome Larkin and ask him why the Illinois ARDC was so uninterested in the citizen complaints that he received from outraged citizens concerning the mining of Alice Gore’s teeth, the theft of the gold coins from Mary Sykes’ safety deposit box.   Indeed, I personally am dying to now why Larkin was so desperate to shut me up concerning my call for an HONEST complete and comprehensive investigation of elder cleansing and in particular the Mary Sykes fiasco and criminal enterprise!  
Ken Ditkowsky

http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/

Aside

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Feb 23, 2014 3:21 PM
To: “illinois.ardc@gmail.com”
Cc: Eric Holder , Jo Anne M Denison , Cook County States Attorney , NASGA , probate sharks
Subject: Complaint against attorney Jerome larkin

Even though I have been wrongfully disqualified by Ms. JoAnne Denison’s hearing panel, Ms. Denison has authorized to represent her interests in other litigation.     It has been reported to me that certain of Ms. Denison’s copyrights have been allegedly violated by persons who are servants of Mr. Larkin.    As the infringement of a copyright is a ‘taking’ this action constitutes a serious matter. 18 USCA 4.   
 
As the ‘moral’ determinant or determinator for attorneys Larkin should be as Caesar’s wife.   It does not appear that he has been filing Ethics statements as is required of all public employees and the complaint the he filed (see Rule 137) against Ms. Denison violates 47 USCA 230.    I desire that the independent lawyer investigating Mr. Larkin’s conduct be informed of this serious indiscretion and the fact that it appears to have continued for some time even after Larkin was informed of the same.   Of course Lawyers are charged with knowledge of the law; however, *******For your information:
 

Effective: October 21, 1998
47 U.S.C.A. § 230
§ 230. Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material
Currentness
(a) Findings
The Congress finds the following:
(1) The rapidly developing array of Internet and other interactive computer services available to individual Americans represent an extraordinary advance in the availability of educational and informational resources to our citizens.
(2) These services offer users a great degree of control over the information that they receive, as well as the potential for even greater control in the future as technology develops.
(3) The Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.
(4) The Internet and other interactive computer services have flourished, to the benefit of all Americans, with a minimum of government regulation.
(5) Increasingly Americans are relying on interactive media for a variety of political, educational, cultural, and entertainment services.
(b) Policy
It is the policy of the United States–
(1) to promote the continued development of the Internet and other interactive computer services and other interactive media;
(2) to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation;
(3) to encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control over what information is received by individuals, families, and schools who use the Internet and other interactive computer services;
(4) to remove disincentives for the development and utilization of blocking and filtering technologies that empower parents to restrict their children’s access to objectionable or inappropriate online material; and
(5) to ensure vigorous enforcement of Federal criminal laws to deter and punish trafficking in obscenity, stalking, and harassment by means of computer.
(c) Protection for “good samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material
(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
(2) Civil liability
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of–
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).1
(d) Obligations of interactive computer service
A provider of interactive computer service shall, at the time of entering an agreement with a customer for the provision of interactive computer service and in a manner deemed appropriate by the provider, notify such customer that parental control protections (such as computer hardware, software, or filtering services) are commercially available that may assist the customer in limiting access to material that is harmful to minors. Such notice shall identify, or provide the customer with access to information identifying, current providers of such protections.
(e) Effect on other laws
(1) No effect on criminal law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair the enforcement of section 223 or 231 of this title, chapter 71 (relating to obscenity) or 110 (relating to sexual exploitation of children) of Title 18, or any other Federal criminal statute.
(2) No effect on intellectual property law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand any law pertaining to intellectual property.
(3) State law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent any State from enforcing any State law that is consistent with this section. No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.
(4) No effect on Communications Privacy law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the application of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 or any of the amendments made by such Act, or any similar State law.
(f) Definitions
As used in this section:
(1) Internet
The term “Internet” means the international computer network of both Federal and non-Federal interoperable packet switched data networks.
(2) Interactive computer service
The term “interactive computer service” means any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions.
(3) Information content provider
The term “information content provider” means any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service.
(4) Access software provider
The term “access software provider” means a provider of software (including client or server software), or enabling tools that do any one or more of the following:
(A) filter, screen, allow, or disallow content;
(B) pick, choose, analyze, or digest content; or
(C) transmit, receive, display, forward, cache, search, subset, organize, reorganize, or translate content.

CREDIT(S)
(June 19, 1934, c. 652, Title II, § 230, as added Feb. 8, 1996, Pub.L. 104-104, Title I, § 509, 110 Stat. 137; Oct. 21, 1998, Pub.L. 105-277, Div. C, Title XIV, § 1404(a), 112 Stat. 2681-739.)
47 U.S.C.A. § 230
 
Ken Ditkowsky

http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/

Today’s post on the Hearing–But where is the Law and Where is the Science–Main questions:?

Aside

Dear Readers

While I am writing up now my thoughts and notes, main questions came in from the peanut gallery regarding proceedings in Probate Court that I believe get to the bottom of what is going on.

What I thought was most noteworthy, was 1) the judge admitted Sodini was not going to be used in her court (now, I believe I heard that, but it was fairly shocking news, so I might have misheard; 2) Gloria asked about how a psychiatrist, namely one Dr. Shaw, who never saw her mother in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, etc. is now predicting in Oct. of 2008 simply did not have the capabilities to make or understand a written contract.  He primarily did this assessment of something called a “mini mental” which Dr. Patel conducted maybe once or twice per year and was part of her medical records. Now I would call that being a psychic, because well, Mary wears hearing aids that are not particularly effective, but…. Doc Shaw knows better (quack quack). 3) the court also explained to Gloria who pounded Dr. Shaw with proper procedures published by the Alzheimer’s Assn and the Mayo Clinic how numerous competent tests must be conducted and analyzed, together with a contemporaneous finding of a neurological testing for cognitive abilities before a finding of dementia or Alzheimer’s can be made.  Oops, sorry, skipped that step.

The judge explained how the Probate Court declares people incompetent by the thousands each year and the only standard it uses is whether the person “can make (logical) decisions and be able to communicate those decisions effectively to others.”

That’s it.  No science, no Sodini, no due process.  Get a quack and loot an estate–legally.

Thanks for explaining that your honor.

But there are more comments that are worth publishing below.

So have a delicious read on.  I left the best comment for last.

JoAnne

From Ken Ditkowsky
Sent: Fri, Jul 6, 2012 8:32 pm
Subject: Re: WestlawNext – § 358. Generally
That is the conclusion I’ve come up with.     This is bigger than Greylord, bigger that Watergate, and worse than either one and a dozen scandals that you can pick at random.
Why is the media so frightened of it.   Even the Judge appears to be afraid of it.    This Gulag makes the soviet judicial system look much better than ours.   
Ken Ditkowsky
Ken, since you were concerned that no one knows what a “gulag” is, I’ll explain it here.  The Gulag was a system of work prisons throughout Russia which were masterminded by Stalin circa 1932 to 1970’s when the bestseller the Gulag Archipelago was published and Russia was officially embarrassed to stopping this human tragedy.  You had people declared incompetent or subversive and you sent them to these places where they froze, were starved, infected with various plagues, and then on the brink of death, some lucky ones were sent home.  Most were forgotten and buried in mass graves.  Millions of Russians were sent there over time, but records are sketchy.
Subject: Re: WestlawNext – § 358. Generally
Why is Mary Sykes not entitled to the protections of the statute?    Are there two sets of laws – one for those individuals who are targeted for deprivation of this civil and human rights by the politically elite and those who have no money?
Ken Ditkowsky

Subject: RE: WestlawNext – § 358. Generally

Dear All,


Again very interesting.  I will order the transcripts on Monday and have to leave a deposit and so I must make arrangements to go downtown, et al.  That said, I have been barred from bringing in any evidence, witnesses, and *** even though the court transcripts of previous testimony I was allowed to bring in medical reports of Dr. Patel omitted by Peter Schmiedel and company.

I will be writing up my overview of today, but what is clear is,

(1) Dr. Shaw admitted he could not speak for Dr. Patel, Dr. Moctkya, or Dr. Rabin and the court agreed: however, he was allowed to give his medical opinion as to what he believed they meant when they wrote x, y and z.

(2)  Dr. Shaw admitted that some prescription drugs cause memory loss, disorientation, et al, and also admitted that none of the doctors he reviewed their reports listed the medications Mary G. Sykes was on the time she was evaluated by them:

(3) Dr. Shaw admitted that a diagnosis of dementia does not mean incompetency,

(4) Dr. Shaw claims that mild dementia and serious dementia are the same,

(5) and today Peter Schmiedel got Dr. Shaw to admit that all mother has is memory loss…

(6)  The Judge said that the US Supreme court decision based on an Illinois case that retroactive incompetency diagnoses are not allowed should not be considered, et al, 

(7)  The Judge said that Sodini does not apply to the Sykes case,

(8) The Judge claimed that there is no Illinois statue that states that a respondent to a petition for a protective order cannot be a guardian,

(9)  The Judge said that Toerpe can waive my mother’s rights to medical confidentially
and, but not limited to,

(10)  Dr. Shaw admitted that he may not have received all of the medical reports on mother but that his evaluation was determined on medical reports supplied by Carolyn Toerpe,

oops and,

(11) That he did evaluate mother recently, in April or May 2012 (which I’ve never seen his report)  but that he did not know if mother was on any medications, prescribed or otherwise…

The Judge said that I could not impeach him through my cross…

The Judge said that I could not give argument after Peter Schmiedel gave argument as to why the Court should sustain his objection(s)

And finally, Peter Schmiedel said that because he has a certificate of mailing that he knows I was served notice, et al.  

Peter Schmiedel then had in the order that I am to be called as a witness on the 16 August because I was on his service list.  The Judge then asked to show his service list which he did not have.  I have never been subpoenaed for service. I told the judge that I did supply them with a service list and Stuart told me that that was for ‘something else” and that the date my ‘witnesses were to testify” they were put in the hallway and I was handcuffed to a chair and… Schmiedel got that stricken..

Finally, I have court transcripts where the Judge says in 2011 that there is no proof my mother is incompetent only that she cannot make certain decision.  

JoAnne was targeted up front as to why she was in court and Judge Stuart said she doesn’t remember JoAnne ever being in court.  Accordingly, the deputy sheriff claims that the sheriff can determine whether or not a public can bring in their laptop.  Judge Stuart said that JoAnne could take notes on a yellow legal pad.  

At a certain point the deputy sheriff was going to take JoAnne’s computer, and the Judge waived her off.  JoAnne stayed in the courtroom with the computer on her lap  looking at the Judge.

I would like to know as Peter Schmiedel’s witness what I am testifying to … again as his witness….and what rights I have?  

Thanks
Gloria Jean Sykes 

Expert witnesses
Do not forget the fact that your mother passes a written driving test administered by the State of Illinois
Ken Ditkowsky
From Tim Lahrman
Subject: Re: WestlawNext – § 358. Generally
Date: Jul 6, 2012 7:43 PM
this is the present day practice of economic eugenics  …..   a shit law, very dangerous law —-  easily exploited law
that seemingly supports economic involuntary sterilization — and privateering with impunity.
I almost think I would prefer to face a bunch of Somali pirates than a court appointed guardian  ——  both are stealing you blind and if you shoot and kill the Somali pirate you are an American hero entitled to own and use your gun to defend yourself ——  but if you shoot the guardian the headline reads
“Crazed gunman with history of mental illness ……..”