This article (like the Greylord matter)

kenneth ditkowsky	11:59 AM (1 minute ago)
to Tim, Tim, NASGA, me, JoAnne, 60m, tips, tips, SUNTIMES, Cook, Eric, matt, IllinoisLawyer., illinois.ardc

Tim,

This article (like the Greylord matter) is the reason that thechange in mission for the Mr. Larkin and the IARDC is so sinister.    The mission of the IARDC is to protect the public.   Instead of protecting the public and do what they are delegated, in the Sykes case, the Gore Case, Wyman Case, Tyler cases et al they (Mr. Larkin and the IARDC) in an ultra viresmanner decided that their mission was to silence critical comment and calls for an investigation of clearly miscreant and illegal activity on the part of persons they defined as "judicial officials."   For instance, Adam Stern, Cynthia Farenga, Peter Schmiedel **** got a free pass even though it was obvious that the Judge, Stern, Farenga, Schmiedel et al knew that the sole purpose of the sanction proceeding promulgated against me (in the Sykes case in 2010) was to intimidate me and get me (like the half dozen or other attorneys that Gloria Sykes brought into the picture).    

When I was not intimidated, the Judge (who lacked jurisdiction and knew or should have known this fact) fined me approximately $5000.00.   When I was still not intimidated and won my appeal in stepped Mr. Larkin and charged me with being critical of Judge Connors and Judge STuart.   He charged that I had the audacity to complain that Mary Sykes had been denied her liberty and property and I pointed out that a million dollars in collectibles (more or less - it could be as much as five million is JoAnne is correct that most of the coins were uncirculated) had not been inventoried!   According to Mr. Larkin it was ethically challenged for me complain to law enforcement that as the Rule of Law had not been observed, no jurisdiction had been obtained = because the jurisdictional criterion of the statute was ignored - and Mary had been railroaded into a guardianship and her estate ravaged.    

As I reasoned that if the 'loot' had not been inventoried, it probably had not been reported as income to the IRS,  Mr. Larkin's attorneys went balastic.   One of Mr. Larkin's attorneys on cross examination walked up to me and with all the authority that he could muster asked me if I was repentant for writing Mr. Holder = the attorney general of the United States of America.   Of course I was not and am not - I AM A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.    The IARDC hearing panel was 'shocked!' and to demonstrate to me that I ought to have remorse for exercising my First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights they recommended that the Supreme Court suspend my law license for four years!    

I have no remorse!  As a citizen the United States Supreme Court has vindicated my right to associate with people who are victims of 'elder cleansing' and to speak, write, and otherwise express my opinions as to quality of justice (or the lack thereof).  Such is basic America 101.  Every pre-teen who desires to enter high school has to pass a constitution test.   This fact is elicited from each one.  [Except those who are designated to be lawyers for the IARDC!] 

Thus,  I Appealed to Mr. Larkin's Review panel.  Amazingly briefs on this subject were required!   As the Supreme court has ruled that content related speech is beyond the perview of government, it amazes me that there is any issue to be determined.    The IARDC attorney cited the Sawyer case as authority for the IARDC to regulate my speech.    That was amazing as The Supreme Court upheld Ms. Sawyer's right to speak out against the Smith Act.   The case clearly vindicates my right to speak out against certain judges refusing to comply with title 11a of the Probate Act and in particular the criterion required to obtain jurisdiction.   Indeed as Mr. Larkin has taken the evidence deposition of the presiding Judge in the Sykes case and on his redirect elicited from her statements that are clear in pointing out that not only did she not require CT (plenary guardian) to meet the requirements, but, *****.   (Read her statement - you will not believe it!)

As all lawyers are supposed to know that a citizen has the absolute right to exercise his/her First Amendment Rights I filed a motion before the Review panel to dismiss - It was denied!   I filed in JoAnne Denison's proceeding a similar motion.   Not only was it denied, but her panel decided that I had a "conflict of interest."

Tim - I am not making this stuff up!  You have to read the brief filed by Mr. Larkin.   in his brief he makes it very clear that his mission statement is to obfuscate the decisions of the United States Supreme Court and to prosecute any attorneys who are critical of judges including but not limited to judges such as are reported in the new article attached, judges who are supposed to be neutral and give advice to litigants, ignore their statutory responsibilities etc.   Mr. Larkin has defined his mission as stopping lawyers under pain of losing their law licenses to ignore judicial misconduct and certainly not communicate with the Attorney General of the United States.   [I am sending Mr. Larkin and IARDC and the Illinois Bar copies of these e-mails as in my opinion as I exercise my First Amendment Rights are recall the events that are occurring I am noting questionable conduct that falls within the gambit of Himmel.   For instance, Mr. Larkin's attorney in asking me if I was repentant for reporting criminal conduct to the United States of America may have been guilty of obstruction of justice, aiding abetting the felony of tax evasion etc.   The statutory mission of the IARDC - whether Mr. Larkin agrees or not is to protect the public from miscreant conduct of lawyers.   Aiding a abetting tax evasion and/or obstruction of justice are criminal conduct and under Himmel I have to report the same]

Judy is of the opinion that I should cool it!   Ordinarily I would, however, this Ethical cleansing being accomplished by Mr. Larkin's negative mission creep that now places priority on denying lawyers their First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment Rights is so insidious and so dangerous to American Democracy that it would be amoral for me to stop beating the drum.  In 1936 lawyers and other concerned citizens allowed the National Socialists to do exactly what has been going on in the Sykes case and similar cases.    In the 70's, 80's, and 90's Lawyers kept quiet until a Federal prosecutor started to look into our judiciary.   15 judges went to jail, other resigned and a bunch of lawyers joined the rust to club fed.    

I cannot cease my efforts as I know that Mary Sykes and other senior citizens have lost their liberty and property rights and the judiciary and law enforcement do not seem to care.   The clear mandate of the statute is ignored.  The Judge connoted in the article is not an Illinois Judge; however, ****

Tim - we need right now an HONEST intelligent complete and comprehensive investigation of this entire dirty mess.  Our democratic institutions require that Americans of all occupations, colors, creeds, social standing, age, etc have full and comprehensive FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS free from the self appointed individuals and government agencies that want to prevent the free expression of ideas, free associations, and free access to other similarly minded individuals.   

 

Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com