Monday, June 27, 2016

This should tell you something!


Sunday morning I turned one of the Sunday political shows and watched as Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager was being interviewed.     The interview drew me back to the answers that we received in the elder cleansing schedule and the attorney disciplinary proceedings.     In the disciplinary proceedings the standard answer was to change the subject or object to the question.    In this interview the interviewer would ask:   What foreign policy victories occurred during Hillary Clinton’s watch as Secret of State?   The answer was Donald Trump is unfit to be president.    What did Hillary Clinton do when ****?   Donald Trump is rude, crude, and does not brush his teeth regularly.
Brexit is an amazing rejection of exactly that type of disrespect to the intelligence of the public, and the primary victories of Sanders and Trump echo the absolute disgust of the public as to the suggestion that we are too stupid to know when we are being disrespected.     The interviewer of the Clinton Campaign manager was all too happy to accept the non-answers, but, I personally was repelled.      I really want to know what, if any, victories Clinton can claim as I wanted to know what statements that I made, JoAnne made, Amu made **** that were untrue.    So far every statement that I made or JoAnne made is verified in the Court files maintained by the Circuit Court of Cook County.   Barring those files from evidence does not make them untrue and as Larkin and the disciplinary board have the burden of proof it is more than a mystery to ascertain how without evidence they proved anything.       Of course we know!        The commission asserted that the jurisdictional requirement of notice was not necessary as the family of Mary Sykes (as an example) had knowledge of the date and time of a hearing in some undisclosed manner.    Indeed, as there was no hearing held,  whatever soothsayer consulted by the hearing board secretly to ascertain this averred knowledge is a bit frugal with the truth.     (The commission had to prove their case by clear and convincing evidence – and apparently was able to prove the same without a single witness or a single word being uttered)
The vacuum of evidence or answers to specific questions is troubling both in the political field and the down to earth field of judicial corruption.      Donald Trump having bad breath is not answer to the question as to what, if anything, Hillary accomplished as Secretary of State.      We all know that during her watch ISIS gained a strong foothold in Northern Africa,  Egypt almost went down the drain as the Muslim brotherhood gained control, Syria and Russia united to fight the rebels and ISIS went from second string terrorists to be major players.     Maybe this is considered by her advocates to be a good thing.     Indeed, in a similar intellectual endeavor when Lanre Amu complained that Judge Egan even though on the Board of Directors of the defendant in his case refused to recuse herself  (and her brother was the attorney for the defendant) Mr. Larkin and the Disciplinary commission determined that Amu was lying and unethical.   Without a scintilla of evidence or a single witness the Illinois Supreme Court suspended him for the outrage.    Even the respected Crain’s Chicago business report making the very same allegations did not merit even a suspicion that not only did Larkin and the disciplinary Commission were less than candid.     (exactly how Larkin proved any wrongdoing on the part of Amu with the Judge testifying and denying that she was on the board of directors of the defendant is another one of those unsolved mysteries – that parallels our understanding how the rise of 2nd string ISIS (or ISIL) is a victory for American foreign policy.
A Yale professor and a General speaking for the Administration have been very clear in telling the American people that we are stupid and thus we are pawns for the taking.         Let me assure you all that we are not!     It may take quite an effort to over-come the advantage of the political and judicial elite but IT WILL OCCUR.       None of the elite believed that 52% of the Brits would vote to get the hell out of the Euromarket and the bureaucratic hell that it created, but they did it.    It is not pretty, but it was done.   
Quite frankly most of us do not give the tinker’s damn who become the next president of the United States as we do not trust either one of the candidates; however,  most of us resent the condescension.      We do however care that our Courts are a fixed or wired lottery and they have stopped working.    We resent that we are ‘prey’ for the corrupt judges, lawyers, judicial officials and host of political elite.     The idea that when we become infirm we could be elder cleansed is disquieting and most disturbing.   The fact that the Attorney Disciplinary Commissions are set up to protect the miscreants from law enforcement and citizens who are aggrieved is an accurate but disconcerting thought.  
The fact has to be accepted that the media is disinterested in elderly and the disabled in this country and co-operating with the miscreant elder cleansers who isolate their prey, obtain guardians for them and their assets and rob the elderly of their homes, assets, property, liberty and humanity before they euthanize them.       This is the same media that accepts the answer to the question – what plan does Hillary have to deal with the economy -  “Donald Trump is unfit to be the President o f the United States”      It is time for some ‘straight answers’ and equal protection of the law.     It is time for us to hear what, if anything, Hillary’s plan is, rather than rare demonizing of her opponent.      It is time for both candidates to demonstrate that they respect the intelligence of the electorate and recognize that if elected they serve us – not the other way around!    That simple understanding will alleviate part of the problem we have with the bureaucracy.  (I may just be paranoid!)
The way to address Jerome larkin and his kind is to make them pay the income taxes, interest and penalties that they incurred because of their breach of trusts.    Larkin in the Denison case admitted to wrongfully expropriating and paying out approximately $15000.00 in ARDC funds that he knew or should have know he had no right to pay out.     That $15,000 plus the interest taxes and penalties is owed by Larkin.   When he covered up for the guardian in the Sykes case and 3 million dollars disappeared, Larkin owed taxes (jointly and severally) on that $3,000,000.00.   He therefore owes the interest and penalties.  Similarly each of the estates in which he participated in the cover up he owes interest, taxes and penalties.   

From Ken Ditkowksy–no excuse for Larkin to use unlicensed court reporters!

Posted on June 26, 2016
I think we need to send the IARDC a Media FOIA request right away:
1) How many court reporters has the IARDC hired in the last 10 years that have been unlicensed?
2) do they check the license of every court reporter they hire?
3) who at the ARDC checks for the court reporter’s license.
4) who hired, participated in the hiring of unlicensed court reporters and court reporters coming from agencies that have invalid/expired corporate names?
6) how much has the IARDC paid unlicensed court reporters for the last 10 years?
7) who hired or participated in the hiring of each of these court reporters?
8) has any person employed by the IARDC received any kickback, finders fee or payment of any kind from any court reporter or court reporter agency?
9) has any person employed by the IARDC received any promise or benefit of any kind or type from any licensed court reporter or court reporter agency?
To: Probate Sharks <>, and 30 others…
Subject: this should tell you something!
Date: Jun 26, 2016 1:09 PM
The Supreme Court of Illinois by its obvious mistreatment of Disciplinary Cases including but not limited the JoAnne Denison case has abrogated its position and each of the justices reduced the dignity of the court to zero.
The fact that the court knows or should know that by it obvious attornment to the criminal fraud of Jerome Larkin it has effectually made all licensing in the State of Illinois void.   Larkin at all times relevant knew or should have known that he was violating the law when he engaged unlicensed court reports to provide reports of proceedings for his kangaroo hearings, and he certainly knew (also the Court knew) that his secret petition asking the Supreme Court to engaged JoAnne Denison to reimburse him for the illegal payments was wrongful.
However, the Court cannot act as a Court improperly and attorn to individual officeholders and/or public officials doing wrongful acts.   Thus, it cannot affirm a State agency or even a Judicial entity engaging unlicensed professionals (court reporters) and therefore as licensing statutes are clearly VOID Larkin can engaged unlicensed court reporters in derogation of the Rule of Law.   No valid licensing equates to a carte blanc to engage anyone as a court reporter.
The net is simple – the State of Illinois and the IARDC have been illegally licensing people for years and every dime collected must be returned to the people who have been misled by the State officials and judicial officials.   
It is dishonest for the State of Illinois and the IaRDC to not return this money immediately!
Ken Ditkowsky

No comments:

Post a Comment

Thank you for commenting.
Your comment will be held for approval by the blog owner.