Our mission is to expose and remedy corruption in the Probate Court of Cook County, Illinois. We assist, educate and enlighten families of the dead, the dying, the disabled and the aged to better understand their rights in order to protect themselves from the excesses of the Probate Court of Cook County. ProbateSharks.com is dedicated to networking the human element of people to people. We join together in reforming the corrupt Cook County Probate Court system.

Thursday, July 31, 2014

The Blog Police (They Live Inside of My Head)!

Tuesday, July 29, 2014

The Blog Police (They Live Inside of My Head)!

What is with all these South Florida blogger suits:

It seems that Dr. Tobinick does not appreciate public criticism of his claims and practice, and he wants me to remove the post from SBM. In my opinion he is using legal thuggery in an attempt to intimidate me and silence my free speech because he finds its content inconvenient.

Of course, we have no intention of removing the post as we feel it is critical to the public’s interest. This is what we do at SBM – provide an objective analysis of questionable or controversial medical claims so that consumers can make more informed decisions, and to advance the state of science in medicine.

We also feel it is critical not to cave to this type of intimidation. If we do, we might as well close up shop (which I suspect the Tobinicks of the world would find agreeable). Defending against even a frivolous lawsuit can be quite expensive, but we feel it is necessary for us to fight as hard as we can to defend our rights and the work that we do here at SBM.

An interesting wrinkle of this suit is that Tobinick is claiming that my blog post is an “advertisement.” This is a legal maneuver as the threshold for forcing someone to remove an advertisement is much lower than the threshold for suppressing their free speech. I can only assume that he and his attorneys are not bothered by the fact that blog posts on SBM are blatantly not advertisements.

In the case of the Enbrel article he had to make the absurd claim that the post (which does not mention my own practice) was an advertisement for my neurology practice at Yale, designed to attack a “competitor.” He would have us believe that Yale neurology in Connecticut is concerned about a distant clinic. Further, Yale Neurology is an academic practice. Our problem is too many referrals and long wait times, not competitors. To see how desperate the claim is, he argued that because I use Botox, which can be used to treat symptoms following stroke, that his treatments for stroke represent a competitor. However, I don’t use Botox to treat stroke patients. I mostly use it to treat migraines, as I am a headache specialist.

Perhaps he feels that my 18-year career promoting science, critical thinking, and science-based medicine is just a cover so I can occasionally attack distant tangential “competitors.”

In any case, the fight is on.

So, as usual, this guy has drawn more attention to a post that likely would have evaporated into the inter-ether amid the wash of Beyonce updates, sad Keanu Reeves pics and cute kitten videos.

The suit does seem like a bit of a stretch.

And the good doc from Yale has a master in his corner -- "Razzles" Randazza, who rightly toned down the snark in his opposition papers (he's before Judge Zloch):

On May 17, 2013, the Plaintiffs demanded a retraction of the critical article, which Dr. Novella declined to provide. Novella Decl. ¶¶17-18. Thirteen months later, the Plaintiffs filed suit, alleging Lanham Act violations, unfair competition, trade libel, libel per se, and tortious interference with business relationships. They now seek an untimely and unwarranted prior restraint in the form of a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction. As a result of the excessive thirteen-month delay, Plaintiffs’ request for an preliminary injunction is moot, and must be denied for being untimely.

Wonder if this case will turn out as well as that other one we've been following.

Former Rothstein partner Russell Adler gets 2 1/2 years in prison

Up Next: Raw: Otters Enjoy Water Slides at Japan Zoo

River otters were hitting the water slides to beat the summer heatwave on Wednesday at Ichikawa City's Zoological and Botanical Garden. (July 30)

Starts In:

Just Watched

Ponzi schemer's partner sentenced to 30 months in prison

Share on email

Replay

Disbarred lawyer and former Scott Rothstein law partner Russell Adler was sentenced to 30 months in prison for making illegal political campaign donations and must surrender in 90 days.

By Paula McMahon, Sun Sentinel

6:51 p.m. EDT, June 27, 2014

When Russell Adler joined Scott Rothstein's growing Fort Lauderdale practice ten years ago, he insisted the law firm change its name – making it Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler, or RRA.
As a judge sentenced him to 2 1/2 years in federal prison on Friday, Adler said the name change was the first of a series of decisions he deeply regrets.
"Being the A in RRA turned into an ironic curse that has ruined my name and haunts and humiliates me to this day," he told the judge.

The law firm went bankrupt in late 2009 when Rothstein's $1.4 billion Ponzi scheme was exposed and all three name partners have now pleaded guilty to committing federal crimes.
Adler, 52, who admitted he illegally funneled campaign donations to Republican presidential and Senate campaigns on Rothstein's behalf, began visibly shaking in court as U.S. District Judge James Cohn announced his punishment.

He put his fingers to his eyes and sighed deeply.
When the law firm was "awash with cash" in 2008 and 2009, Judge Cohn wondered aloud what exactly Adler – an experienced attorney and name partner – thought was happening.

"Mr. Adler was at the epicenter, he was at ground zero. Was he blind and deaf as to what was going on?" the judge asked. "The public needs to see that there is a price to pay for conduct such as this."
The former lawyer, who was permanently disbarred last week, must begin serving his prison term on Sept. 29. Sentencing guidelines recommended a prison term of two to 2 1/2 years, followed by two years of supervised release.
Adler, of Delray Beach and Fort Lauderdale, apologized for his crimes and said he was devastated his 27-year career as a lawyer ended with disbarment.
"I leave my profession in shame and disgrace ... But my wounds are self-inflicted," he said.
The judge asked prosecutors Friday if he should consider Rothstein's Ponzi scheme activities at the law firm in sentencing Adler.
Rothstein gave sworn statements alleging that Adler knew about his investment fraud scheme and helped Rothstein keep it afloat. Adler has always denied those claims.
Adler could not "legally be held responsible for the activities of the Ponzi," said Assistant U.S. Attorney Lawrence LaVecchio. But he noted Adler was involved in other misconduct – including lying to a co-op board in New York City about borrowing money from the law firm to buy an apartment.
Supporters, including Senior Broward Circuit Judge Richard Eade, spoke on Adler's behalf and praised his professionalism, ethics and generosity.
One former client, Mary Haig, told the judge Adler charged no fee when he won a $1.8 million settlement for her daughter, who suffered a traumatic brain injury.
"He treated my daughter like his own," Haig said.
Adler stayed with her daughter in the hospital in 2003 and held her hand when the parents had to briefly leave her side, Haig said.
And a formerly homeless man, Michael Gudewicz, told the judge Adler saved his life when he invited him to be his roommate in the Point of Americas condo on Fort Lauderdale beach where they lived for months, before moving together to Delray Beach.
Those acts of compassion and charity were laudable, the judge said, but there was other issues about Adler's behavior in recent years that caused him concern.

Kasem’s daughter goes after ‘silent epidemic’

By Judy Kurtz

Share on facebook 137 Share on twitter 16 Share on google_plusone_share More Sharing Services 11 Share on email

Kerri Kasem, the daughter of famed radio disc jockey Casey Kasem, is getting a crash course in lobbying.
She is crafting and proposing a bill in California that would allow adult children to petition probate courts to obtain an order granting visitation rights to ailing parents. Now, she wants to take her fight straight to Capitol Hill.

“This is a silent epidemic,” Kasem says in a phone interview.Kasem and her siblings were involved in a bitter court battle with their stepmother to gain control of their father’s medical decisions when the “American Top 40” host died last month at age 82. Kasem claims, along with some of her siblings, her father’s family and best friends were all “kept away” from him. Although things have “settled down” since her dad’s death, Kasem acknowledges there was “so much drama” in the radio veteran’s final months.
“It’s not just a celebrity cause,” Kasem says, “This is happening to people all over the country. … I’m receiving hundreds of letters. … The letters keep coming in with stories, horrific stories, of people that have been blocked from their loved ones.”
The current laws in states across the country are “kind of working against the person who’s ill, and working against the family, and working against the person’s wishes,” she argues.
“There’s nothing right now on the books that allows a judge to say, ‘Let’s send a court-appointed attorney out to the ailing individual and ask if they want to see their kids.’ ”
Kasem, a radio personality herself, created the Kasem Cares Foundation to gain support for her efforts as the bill makes its way through the California Legislature. “I don’t want just people in California to have visitation, I want everybody to. I’m going to go state to state,” she says.
She says she would “100 percent love” to head to Washington to discuss elder abuse with lawmakers. Kasem says she’s even willing to set up shop in the nation’s capital to make her voice heard: “Not only do I want to come and talk about it, I would love to be just be there, even if it meant moving there for awhile, if this is something I could take federal.”
The political world isn’t completely foreign to Kasem. Her mother is a political fundraiser and her dad was “heavy into politics as well.” Of her celebrity dad, she adds with a chuckle, “But he was a bleeding heart liberal, and my mother was a staunch Republican.” She says working on the legislation has offered a quickie lesson in “learning how to get a bill pushed through, and lobbying, and understanding [it.]”
Asked what her father would think of the work she’s doing, she replied, “He’d be very, very proud of me. … I’m not stopping until this is in 50 states.”

Tags: Kerri Kasem, Casey Kasem, American Top 40, Radio

Petition of the Month, July 2014: Ditkowsky v. The Illinois Attorney Disciplinary Review Committee (IARDC)

HOME

EXPERT SERVICE

PRICING

FEATURED PETITIONS

CONTACT

Petition of the Month, July 2014: Ditkowsky v. The Illinois Attorney Disciplinary Review Committee (IARDC)

The Supreme Court Press “Petition of the Month”_TM for July 2014 is Ditkowsky v. The Illinois Attorney Disciplinary Review Committee (IARDC) Supreme Court Dkt. No. 13-1473, an appeal coming out of the State of Illinois. The petition was filed pro se by the petitioner Kenneth K. Ditkowsky.

Question Presented: (two of four questions presented by Petitioner)

1. Does the First Amendment provide protection to an attorney who reports criminal conduct to law enforcement?

2. Does the Illinois Attorney Disciplinary code nullify the moral and common law obligation of requiring citizens to object to elder abuse and financial exploitation of the elderly?

Many lawyers take up the law for idealistic reasons - to fight for the weak, to correct injustices, and preserve the rule of law. Upholding these values requires action be taken - action that can be lauded as crusading and exemplary by some, but reckless and inconvenient by others. However, when the lawyer takes on corruption whose seed might be planted within the legal system itself, the system sometimes retaliates with a fury with the ultimate punishment for an attorney - a referral to the bar's disciplinary committee and long term suspension or disbarment.

In the case of Ditkowsky v. The Illinois Attorney Disciplinary Review Committee (IARDC), Supreme Court, Dkt. No. 13-1473, Kenneth Ditkowsky was suspended from the bar for four years due to his investigation of what he believed to be the looting of an elderly woman, Mary Sykes. He believed that her attorney-guardian may have gone so far as to have stripped her bank safe deposit box and gold teeth fillings.. When he pursued the investigation, he was referred to the IARDC which recommended and ultimately achieved Ditkowsky's bar suspension. The IARDC took little account of Ditkowsky's past role in ferreting out corruption, notably helping the feds uncover judicial bribe taking in the Operation Greylord scandal of thirty years ago.

The Ditkowsky petition asks the Court to consider whether a lawyer's action to protect a potential abuse victim is Constitutionally protected speech.

As I dug into the Sykes case, I discovered that I had stepped into a quagmire. What was going was unbelievable! The family of Alice Gore reported that their mother was isolated, stripped of her assets, abused and Attorney Miriam Solo had orchestrated the removal of 29 teeth from Ms. Gore's mouth so as to mine her gold fillings! - Kenneth K. Ditkowsky

	Mr. Ditkowsky – Thank you for sitting down with us and discussing your Supreme Court filing. You have an interesting background as an activist for judicial integrity. Can you tell our readers about your role in ferreting out the corruption in Operation Greylord?
	As an active practicing attorney in Cook County, Illinois, I had several occasions to appear before Judges who were targeted by the Operation Greylord scandal. This scandal rocked the legal profession as it exposed not only the extent of the corruption but the venality. The Chief Judge of the Chancery Division, Judge Shields, was charged with accepting a $200.00 bribe. Dave Shields had had a reputation as a ‘reformer’ and had been expected to be a future leader of the new era of trust that was about to commence in the Circuit Court of Cook County. Fifteen Judges, dozens of attorneys, dozens of court personnel etc. went to jail; additional judges quietly retired, allowing them to avoid facing charges. The most venal of the judges was R. Holtzer. He was the President of his religious organization and managed to associate himself with all the right causes.vHis wife was a supervising Insurance Agent for the Prudential Insurance Company and in fact supervised several of my clients. As luck would have it, I accepted an injunction suit that was assigned to Judge Holtzer. The facts were uncontested and in my mind, my clients’ right to an injunction was guaranteed by black letter law. An entire community was being cut off by certain City of Chicago construction so that from approximately 6:00 A.M. to 10:00 A.M. and 3:00 PM to 7:00 PM they, and most emergency vehicles, would have extreme difficulty in accessing their homes. Immediately after the case was assigned, I had a visitor. Mrs. Holtzer came to my office and informed me that I needed several hundred thousand dollars of life insurance. As I had not just fallen off the turnip truck, I politely invited her to leave the office, pointing out to her that my insurance agent was a Mr. Gross, an agent under her supervision; I would discuss my insurance needs with him. I then made two telephone calls. The first call was to a Treasury Agent who was assigned to the Intelligence unit, and the second was to a personal friend who at that time just happened to be the Special Agent in Charge of the FBI office in Miami, Florida. I was almost livid with anger and had to blow off steam somewhere. My two friends were willing listeners. I knew that my refusal to purchase insurance meant that when the case came up for hearing the next morning, I was a dead bag loser. I prepared my Notice of Appeal and docketing statement. As scheduled, the next morning we appeared before Judge Holtzer. The Judge was so very nice that butter would not melt in his mouth. He listened with great interest to our arguments, asked some questions and then with pursed judicial demeanor announced that he was dismissing the case as we had an adequate remedy at law. The Construction would only continue on for a few months and the Construction company had posted a bond and therefore *****. I waited for the order of dismissal to be entered and served everyone in sight with a copy of the Notice of Appeal. I then went down to the clerks’ office and ordered an expedited record. Thereafter I went to the Appellate Court clerks’ office, paid my docketing fee and filed the docketing statement. When I returned to my office, a messenger from the Corporation Counsel’s office was waiting for me with a document entitled “Confession of Error”! The City of Chicago was acknowledging the appropriateness of the Petition for Injunctive relief and was obviating the need for an appeal! Judge Holtzer was not the only Judge engaging in such tactics. I appeared before many of the judges but was not affected except in two additional cases. The rulings in those cases were very strange. The lawyers on the other side of each of these cases were very defensive and neither could look me in the eye. I have no concrete evidence that there was anything wrong or that any of the judges or lawyers were corrupt. The bulk of the Greylord problems involved the traffic court. It was not uncommon to hear that if you hired a particular lawyer, no matter how serious the traffic charge was he had a 100% success rate. Of course, if you had parking tickets, etc., seeing a particular lawyer and/or a particular assistant corporate counsel would cause the ordinance violations to go away. Similarly, in the criminal courts, certain lawyers had magic powers and their clients fared much better than those of ordinary lawyers. The cottage industry of corruption was exposed by the United States of America in subsequent enforcement procedures undertaken in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
	Today we stand at the thirty year anniversary of the first Greylord conviction. What is your assessment of the present state of the Cook County judiciary?
	Today corruption is not open and notorious as it once was. For instance, in 1961 when I first appeared before the Bar, corruption was worn like a badge of honor. We had two competing Courts – the Circuit Court (essentially a Court run by the Mr. Nash and Mr. Kelly – Democratic Party power houses) and the Superior Court (essentially run by the Republicans). The Court had some very fine judges. Judge Lupe as an example had the reputation for honor and honesty. Lawyers who appeared before him – win, lose or draw – lauded him and win lose or draw reported their cases had received a fair trial. Judge Covelli had a well-deserved reputation for his sense of humor. In one case, the foreign born parties to a lawsuit lapsed into their native language. No interpreter was present or called for and Covelli, without missing a beat, allowed each to testify in his/her native language. Covelli's translation was "He says 'yes'; she says 'no'". In another case, I and my opponent discovered that there was no resolution possible in the case because of the 'Rule Against Perpetuities'. Covelli ordered the sheriff to lock us in the Jury Room until we came to a settlement. When we discovered he was pushing the limits, it took us two hours, but we did reach an agreement which was found satisfactory by both of our opposing clients. Most importantly every Chancery Judge had a sense of humor and in non-political cases – always provided a level playing field. You can name these judges on the fingers of one hand. The Court employed Masters in Chancery. The Masters were a world apart. Certain fixer firms abounded, and if they appeared as your opponent, a smart lawyer resigned or prepared for an appeal. Some judges were openly soliciting bribes. One called me on the telephone at home and his words to me were "the bid is five". I had no idea why he was calling or what he meant. I soon found out. Another ruled that the Pythagorean Theorem formula was invalid. This judge, after I served a Notice of Appeal, was informed by his son, a high school freshman, that he was wrong and would be embarrassed. The Judge actually came to my home and begged me to withdraw the appeal. He presented a settlement offer that I could not refuse. After Greylord nothing really changed except that the fixer firms changed their names and the open solicitation for bribes was curtailed. I say curtailed because it takes a new form today. Gone is the white envelope full of dollars. As Judges are elected, many have campaign fund accounts and the bribe is a campaign contribution. As an elected judge faces a retention ballot periodically, rhetorically he/she has to have money to protect his position; however, there are more teeth in the mouth of the average hen than judges not being retained. A wife or child of a judge might legally receive a salary for being the chairman of the campaign committee or an employee in a not disinterested firm. I've detailed in e-mails to the United States Treasury, law enforcement and other interested people a paper on how judges and other members of the political elite receive bribes. The White Envelope Full of Cash is obsolete. I had one case in which the Judge's wife was hired during the case by the defendant entity. In fact the employment contract was offered and accepted on the day of trial. In a case in which the Director of the Illinois Department of Revenue was an interested party, one of the investigators for the IDR furnished me a copy of the Supreme Court of Illinois' opinion a one full week before it was announced to the public. She informed me that the opinion had been written by ***, an attorney in the Illinois Department of Revenue office. (I never verified her statement but, word for word, the document I received was filed as the opinion of the Court!) I did notice that as each judge retired, he was appointed by the Illinois Department of Revenue as a special attorney in a particularly complicated tax case. This all may be coincidence and unrelated to the decision as reached. The guardianship cases about which I complained, for which the Illinois ARDC and the Illinois Supreme Court pulled my license, present a whole smorgasbord of examples. Gloria Sykes reported that there were unusual campaign contributions by 's husband to a political figure. * reported that this husband was involved in more than a hundred real estate transactions involving estates in a single year. Indeed, the official real estate transaction records of Cook County reveal unusual mortgage transactions as well as transactions in which one party allegedly in disrepute purchases a parcel of land and then turns around and resells it to a political figure who is in a position to do "some good" to the aforesaid party at a bargain price. Your inquiry is whether or not Greylord created any change in the climate of corruption in Cook County. The answer is yes. The system is just as venal as it ever was, however, the transactions are much more subtle and much harder to prove. If I wish to sell my home to Judge X for half of its value, who is to tell me I cannot. You may assume that the verdict that I receive from Judge X next January is related, but, *. Judge X's daughter is a very bright articulate young woman. Why should I discriminate against her and not hire her as my personal assistant? Let me make it very clear. We have some bad people in Cook County who are judges, but, we also have many who are dedicated public servants who try to do a good job. For instance, we have several judges who work obscenely long hours and actually read the law, attempt to understand the facts, and go out of their way so that each litigant enjoys a level playing field. In my fifty plus years before the Bar, I've appeared before hundreds of judges who have made me proud of my profession and more importantly proud to appear before them. I've had opponents who I'd give my right arm for and they for me. The vast majority of lawyers and judges whom I've appeared before (or with) are honorable men and women whom I number among my friends. However, there is a minority who are the nadir of the profession. It is indeed fortunate that this collection of miscreants appeared in the twilight of my career rather than in the beginning. (In my early days I was pugnacious) I hope that this answered your question. A lawyer is trained to answer every question with a firm "maybe!" In answer to your question requesting my opinion as to whether the judges who suspended me are problem judges, I have to make the following statement: The Judges of the Supreme Court of Illinois are elected. They are the judges who suspended me. What they did was to affirm the review panel of the IARDC. My research on these panels of the IARDC suggests to me that if the IARDC decided that red was green, the panels would attorn and each panel in turn would agree. The Supreme Court seems to rubber stamp most of the proceedings of the IARDC. However, it also appears that an unusual decision is from time to time published. I refer you to Karavidas* 2013 IL 115767 (page 15), and Peel v ARDC 496 US 91 (page 10, 33, 34, 38). It should be noted that the seven Judges of the Illinois Supreme Court, like all attorneys, have taken an oath to protect the Constitution of Illinois and the United States of America. It is quite obvious that Mr. Larkin, his commission, his lawyers and his rubber stamp panels have assaulted the First Amendment. Article 1 Section 12 of the Illinois Constitution directs the entities of Illinois including the Supreme Court to provide a remedy for all wrongs perpetrated in the state. It therefore follows that the judges of the Supreme Court of Illinois have been specifically directed to protect citizens from grievous wrongs that have been promulgated against the elderly, disabled, and the whistleblowers such as yours truly who protest elder cleansing.
	Let’s now turn to the case that precipitated your Supreme Court filing – which unfortunately is your own case – you were suspended from practicing law for four years – for conduct that allegedly occurred in conjunction with your vigorous legal defense of an elderly woman named Mary Sykes whose assets were possibly being looted. Can you describe the concerns regarding Ms. Sykes that you were investigating?
	Illinois in its statutes has incorporated all the protections necessary to protect senior citizens from exploitation and abuse. 735 ILCS 110/5 guarantees that the rights under the First Amendment and Article 1 section 4 of the Illinois Constitution are FIRST PRINCIPLES! Section 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3 points out that guardianships are not death sentences, but are only tools to be used to provide healthy, comfortable, happy and useful lives for persons subject to the draconian remedy of guardianship. Guardianship is a thankless task (and intended to be so) that only well-meaning and well intentioned people should undertake. My concern with the Mary Sykes case was the allegation and the proof that developed that convinced me that she was railroaded into a guardianship so that her hard earned assets could be expropriated by her older daughter and she could be eliminated. I refer to this final solution as "involuntary assisted suicide." I knew Mary; I had represented her previously in a jury trial. I know from my experience that the dementia is progressive and does not suddenly appear. I also knew that Mary's older daughter was married to an individual who suffered from chronic unemployment. He just could not keep a job. As I state in my petition after Mary's family contacted me, I started my FRCP 11 investigation. This investigation required me to find out why Dr. Patel's report was 180 degrees different than the Report of Dr. Amdur. To my surprise Adam Stern called me and threatened me. When Stern could not frighten me, Peter Schmiedel called and he reiterated the threats. (I opened the speaker phone so that my wife could hear each conversation). The two attorneys, the first a Guardian ad Litem, the second, the attorney for the plenary guardian, then filed a Supreme Court Rule 137 motion against me. Rule 137 deals with false pleadings – I had not even inadvertently had contact with any pleading or any proceeding involving the case of In re: Mary Sykes 09 P 4585. Now I was hooked. Even though there was no jurisdiction I had to address the threats. To my surprise, Judge Connors found me guilty of a Rule 137 violation. Exactly what violation it was has been never disclosed, but, the IARDC and these miscreants do not apparently have to be specific. I am accused by the IARDC of making false statements, yet not a single statement ever been disclosed. Whatever the false statements are only the IARDC knows! (The sanction was reversed by the Court of Appeals for lack of jurisdiction.) Lawyers hold a special position of trust. We are not robots, and our loyalty is to Lady Justice. We do not aid and abet criminal conduct and we certainly do not participate in it. (Maybe I should say – most lawyers!). When injustice or wrongs occur as citizens, not only do we morally have a duty to address these wrongs, but our oath to defend the Constitution (and 18 USCA 4) require each of us (lawyers) to report to law enforcement the criminal activity. I had received threats! Honest lawyers do not threaten – they do! Why should Adam Stern threaten me? Why would he be interested in preventing me from investigating a guardianship? The answer is obvious and I took the information that I knew and informed law enforcement. (Gloria Sykes had written a long complaint to the IARDC complaining of the fact her mother was being abused and isolated. She further complained of the theft of her and her mother's property and the highly suspect and improper actions of Judge Connors, Cynthia Farenga, Adam Stern, et al.) I wrote requesting an investigation. As I dug into the Sykes case, I discovered that I had stepped into a quagmire. What was going was unbelievable! The family of Alice Gore reported that their mother was also isolated, stripped of her assets, abused and Attorney Miriam Solo had orchestrated the removal of 29 teeth from Ms. Gore's mouth so as to mine her gold filings!
	How did it happen that you, acting as a defender of an elderly woman, became the ultimate victim, through a complaint to the IARDC? What did they allege you did?
	The Appellate Court decision finding that the Rule 137 proceedings against me were conducted without jurisdiction was described by Adam Stern as a technicality. Cynthia Farenga, the original Guardian ad Litem was extremely upset, as not only was Judge Connors rendered helpless to stop me from exercising my First Amendment Rights but I was now communicating with the Justice Department, Senator Kirk, and more significantly I was pointing out that a breach of fiduciary relationship was a taxable event. What this meant was that the 'loot' from the elder cleansing was taxable income. Worse yet it was to be taxed as ordinary income rates As Blogs were picking up my statements and republishing them, the miscreants understood that it was possible that the Department of the Treasury would assign one of its employees in the intelligence division to examine the finances in the Sykes case. It also was apparent that Gloria Sykes and a bunch of her mother's friends and neighbors were letter writers. They also were waging a vocal protest to the IARDC and law enforcement over the railroading of Mary Sykes into a guardianship wherein her liberty and property could be pirated. Scott Evans, a former Federal Employee with the CIA, disclosed that he had actually tracked down Mary and found her in an adult day care facility in Naperville, Illinois. He described the horrid conditions and how Mary had absolutely no stimulation or contact with "alive" people. He described the other residents as "zombies!" What upset Judge Connors, and the miscreants was the fact that he chose to disclose this fact after Peter Schmiedel informed the Court of the "wonderful progress" Mary was making Mr. Larkin and the IARDC desired to silence me and in particular wanted to stop the flow of letters and e-mails coming from me. The "safe harbor" letters to Farenga, and Stern were particularly offensive in that I offered to leave them out of any Civil Rights suit that I might file either for myself or a client if they just did the job that they were required to do. This job required them to formally report to the Court and allow to appear a record some uncontroverted facts: The plenary guardian was insolvent prior to her appointment, yet today she exhibits all the attributes of wealth including expensive jewelry, lavish parties, expensive vacations, massive remodeling on her home etc. The big change in the fortunes of the plenary guardian is that she is now a pensioner, having retired from her educator position. Mary Sykes had a safety deposit box (as a co-tenant with Gloria). This box was accessed by the guardian, the contents removed and not one item was inventoried. This box contained a large number of gold coins. These coins were those that Mary and Gloria inherited from Mary's husband and one Albert Biddy. The coins had a value in excess of a million dollars. Mary's two siblings and her younger daughter complained that they could not contact Mary. Telephone contact was forbidden by the plenary guardian. Mary's contact with other friends and neighbors was cut off. Even her beloved garden club was forbidden her. Frequent visits to the emergency room by Mary were noted, including one visit in occasioned by Mary losing 10% of her body weight. Mary had trouble swallowing – the guardian just neglected to get her medical help. I suggested that either of the GALs report to the Court that I had informed them of these facts and they could use my name, if either could not personally verify any of them, if such made them more comfortable. When I received no reply, I reported this fact to law enforcement. I demanded an Honest, intelligent and comprehensive investigation. See Farenga letter. Farenga's letters are reproduced in Appendix P of the Petition for Writ of Certiorari. Stripped to its essentials that IARDC complaint against me is that I complied with FRCP and started an investigation before filing a lawsuit, and when attempts to silence were promulgated I wrote to law enforcement and others a complaint that outlined some uncontroverted facts, to wit: The guardianship of Mary violated the Rule of Law and in particular the Constitution in that: No jurisdiction was obtained as Mary was not served with process that complied with the statutory requirements. The file indicates that there was no service on her at all. No notice of any kind was given to the relatives of Mary Sykes including her two sisters – this is also jurisdictional. Every protection to which Mary was entitled was ignored. It is respectfully submitted that the respondent and in particular its director made it clear in their cross-examination of me that this entire proceeding was brought because they could not intimidate me into abandoning my responsibilities as a human being. The punishment was augmented to four years because I showed no remorse. (An IARDC attorney actually asked me if I was remorseful for writing to the Attorney General of the United States disclosing this elder cleansing of Mary Sykes). Effect on me of the Spurious Charges that threatened my livihood.

The question of how this chilling action by the Illinois Supreme Court affects other lawyers in suspending me, Mr. Amu, and prosecuting Ms. Denison has one simple answer. I do not know, however, I suspect that a family member or victim of elder cleansing is having a more difficult task in obtaining a lawyer to protect their interests. If my suspicion is correct, the Illinois Supreme Court has not only done a terrible service to the Illinois public, but forever tarnished its reputation and that of the legal profession. - Kenneth K. Ditkowsky

	How did you react when you learned that your law license was in jeopardy, when you were exercising your First Amendment rights and doing what you believed would assist a possible criminal investigation?
	At first I could not believe that any State of Illinois entity would violate the policy of the State as recited in 735 ILCS 110/5; however, I did know that Illinois was the second most corrupt State in the Union. Illinois had two governors in Federal prison! Students could not name five governors of the State who had not been jailbirds in the past Century. It was difficult to pick up a newspaper and not read about some member of the political elite who was not in some sort of criminal proceeding as a defendant. In my previous half century as a lawyer I had crossed swords with other corrupt political people and I even was the potential victim of a 'hit.' The miscreant was apprehended in the alley behind my home. A neighbor saw him lurking in the alley and called the police. He confessed to his purpose. I recognized the current miscreants as scavengers who preyed on the elderly and the disabled. As Gloria Sykes informed me that all she wanted was her mother to be free from bondage and returned to the life she (Mary) loved, I figured that having secured the 'loot' the miscreants would consider me a minor nuisance and avoid me. Ms. Black who was the IARDC attorney had much more on her mind. She even tried to intimidate Ms. Sykes and as noted in the appendix in answers to discovery pointed out that the administrator had filed his complaint against me without a scintilla of evidence that I had even made a statement that was inaccurate. This became serious when I was denied the opportunity to know what statements I made that were false, and even though the file of case 09 P 4585 vindicated every statement I made (or any of the friends and family of Mary Sykes had made), my subpoena for the file was quashed. Not only were the charges brought against me a secret, but any evidence that might inadvertently demonstrate the perfidy of the proceeding was not to be allowed to get within a country mile of the proceeding. What was particularly interesting and disturbing was the fact that the Supreme Court of the United States had ruled on the issues I was facing and pointed out that the First Amendment protected even outright lies if they were content related. Tthe respondent was therefore arguing you could sell violent videos to children, picket funerals of dead heroes, falsely claim to be a Medal of Honor winner, however you could not report criminal behavior of judicial officials. So disingenuous was the proceeding that the IARDC attorney made statements concerning a fifty year old Sawyer case (decided by the Supreme Court) that were contradicted in the last paragraphs of the opinion. The ruling of the Court was 100% contrary to the statement by an ARDC attorney. After I quoted the ruling word for word as stated by the court, both orally and in documents filed with the court, future statements by the IARDC did not cite the case. Sawyer unless over-ruled should cause the Supreme Court of the United States to reverse the decision of the Illinois Supreme Court that affects me.
	Don’t you feel your case has a chilling effect on attorneys who spot corruption?
	The question of how this chilling action by the Illinois Supreme Court affects other lawyers in suspending me, Mr. Amu, and prosecuting Ms. Denison has one simple answer. I do not know. However, I suspect that a family member or victim of elder cleansing is having a more difficult task in obtaining a lawyer to protect their interests. If my suspicion is correct, the Illinois Supreme Court has not only done a terrible service to the Illinois public, but forever tarnished its reputation and that of the legal profession. Respect is earned. It is earned by hard work, diligence, honor and honesty. In my humble opinion it is dishonest for a lawyer to shirk his responsibility to the Bill of Rights and the core value of Americans. No one asked any individual to be a lawyer! The taking of the oath meant taking the responsibility to stand up when Americana is threatened and be counted even if it means personal loss. This may be flag waving – but, we have something special and it must be preserved.

In my humble opinion it is dishonest for a lawyer to shirk his responsibility to the Bill of Rights and the core value of Americans. No one asked any individual to be a lawyer! The taking of the oath meant taking the responsibility to stand up when Americana is threatened and be counted even if it means personal loss. This may be flag waving – but, we have something special and it must be preserved. - Kenneth K. Ditkowsky

ProbateSharks.com

Featured Content

ProbateSharks.com

Thursday, July 31, 2014

The Blog Police (They Live Inside of My Head)!

Tuesday, July 29, 2014

The Blog Police (They Live Inside of My Head)!

Former Rothstein partner Russell Adler gets 2 1/2 years in prison

Former Rothstein partner Russell Adler gets 2 1/2 years in prison

Starts In:

Just Watched

Kasem’s daughter goes after ‘silent epidemic’

Kasem’s daughter goes after ‘silent epidemic’

Petition of the Month, July 2014: Ditkowsky v. The Illinois Attorney Disciplinary Review Committee (IARDC)

Petition of the Month, July 2014: Ditkowsky v. The Illinois Attorney Disciplinary Review Committee (IARDC)

Search This Blog

Pages

Labels

Blog Archive