Monthly Archives: December 2013

From Ken Ditkowsky–his appeal to the Ill. Supreme Court

Posted on by
Reply

From Ken Ditkowsky–his appeal to the Ill. Supreme Court

 
Exceptions to Review Board Report and Recommendations:
Now comes Kenneth Ditkowsky and for his Exceptions to Review Board Report and Recommendations states:
That the Review Board Report is deficient in that:
1)      320 ILCS 20/4 provides for Ditkowsky’s complete immunity (from Disciplinary proceedings) for complaints to Law enforcement concerning Elder Abuse, Financial Exploitation (Elder Cleansing).
2)      That these instant Commission proceedings are in contravention of this Court’s  decision in the case of  In re: Karavidas 2013 IL 1157l67[1] .
3)      The Policy of the State of Illinois pursuant to 735 ILCS 110/5 is violated by the prosecution of these proceedings and the Review Board report.   The Commission has no delegation of authority to vitiate the Policy of the State of Illinois.   (see Article 1 of the Illinois Constitution).
4)       That the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission lacks jurisdiction and a delegation to review, impede or otherwise interfere with First Amendment Rights of ‘political’ and/or ‘content’ related speech of Attorney Ditkowsky or any other person.  (see Alvarez 132 S. Ct 2537, Ashcroft 535 US 564, Brown 131 S. Ct 2729, Synder 131 S. Ct 876, Citizens United 558 US 310).[2]
5)      The Review Board did not require that the Commission plead and prove its case, or comport with the basic protections of due process required of all other government agencies and litigants, and to in particular plead and prove its claim case with evidence from persons who had actual knowledge of the facts.    (See Discovery responses of Commission – attached in Appendix).
6)      Review Board rejected the Rule of Law as set forth by this Court and the Supreme Court of the United States.
Recommendations
1)      Dismiss Disciplinary proceedings promulgated by Commission against Attorney Kenneth Ditkowsky,
2)      Review proceedings by the Commission for violations of Rule 137.  (Based upon the Commission’s admissions)
3)      Order an Honest, Complete and Comprehensive Investigation of all the ‘elder cleansing’ cases starting with In re: Sykes 09 P 4585 (Cook County) and all similar cases.
4)      Provide such other and different relief as might be equitable and proper.
Respectfully Submitted,
[1] See 18 USCA 3,4, 371, 1983
[2] The Commission also lacks the authority to prevent or impede an attorney from performing his professional responsibilities pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 137 and/or Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.
Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

A reminder of the stated public polity of 47 USC 230–preserve and enhance free speech!

Posted on by
Reply

 

Dear All;

Ken wanted me to remind everyone and esp. the IARDC of the stated policy of 47 USC sec 230 and that is–to preserve and enhance free speech in the US.

I have to notice, often after I appear before a judge, some months later, someone will call or email me from one of the bar associations and ask me to rate the judge.  I have to note that I have rated about a dozen or so judges, but interestingly enough, it would none of them were the dishonest ones–the ones that ignore jurisdiction, summons and complaint, cut attorneys fees to keep an “outsider” out of the courtroom, a judge that sells a ward’s home for far less than market value and what is allowed–the usu. shennanagins.

I never get a ratings call on those judges.  I wonder if the bar associations have a “do not rate” list for the clout heavy judges.

I’m just noticing.  I bet Mr. Amu never got that call either.  What do you think Ken.

JoAnne

47 USC § 230:

(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;

Please note that there is plenty of case law that says no court, hearing board or tribunal is to rule in any manner contrary to the stated policy of the Illinois or Federal legislature.

Yet, I have a Tribunal chair who says that he “might allowed me”  47 USC 230 as a defense to my blogging and Ken’s blogging and the posting of information, comments, fact and opinions by others.

Suppression of free speech is a very serious claim in the the US which should not be summarily dismissed or taken lightly.  The Record on Appeal of Sykes 09 P 4585 has been spread of record and on the internet and on this blog, and shows the severe deficiencies published and commented upon heretofore.  The depositions of the crucial witnesses involved–Gloria Sykes, Scott Evans, Yolanda Bakken and Kathie Bakken have been similarly spread of record.

And yet how does the IARDC tribunal respond?  Under heavy pressure from SO and MS, they pressure me to withdraw the truth from the record–those deposition transcripts and exhibits!  That must be the nadir of the legal profession for 2013. A new low, suppress the truth.

The ARDC has been now well informed of the case 1) Hunter v. VBS, where the attorney was allowed to publish a blog containing the truth or substantial truth, even if it embarrassed the client; 2) Citizens United which says the government cannot regulate political speech at all–it has no jurisdiction to do this; 3) Peel  which says that an attorney can truthfully advertise a speciality without interference from the Bar Assn and this is a first Amendment right and finally, the original SCOTUS case Sawyer which says that an attorney not appearing on a case or after his involvement on the case, can criticize a court, a decision, a judge, a statute or ruling under the First Amendment.  It would appear that the IARDC has whittled down its quotes in the opposite direction to only that an attorney cannot posthumously criticize a judge.  In Mr. Amu’s decision, they seemed to infer that even the best, most honorable witnesses attesting to inadherance of laws and regulations will not overcome the omnipotence of a judge.  They seem to take the strange position that a judge is perfect, a judge is infallible, a judge never has a bad idea or decision–in summary, the judges are cardinals and Timothy Evans is Pope.

We all know how well THAT works out.

Joke:  Why does the Pope believe he’s infallible?  Answer:  He never gets a wife!

But at the end of the day, when the public complains about overt and hidden corruption with the courts, the clout heavy attorneys, the high cost of corruption to us all, unless the PUBLIC demands that the IARDC follow the law, it will only be the fault of the public when honest, ethical attorneys are the scape goats of the system and no one comes to their rescue.

The public should read and understand these cases and teach them to their children and those of lesser understanding who think that a system where secret deals are made behind closed doors with the judges, attys freely wander into the judges’ private areas despite signs and despite a long standing prior court order, then the public has only itself to blame.

Democracy is not a spectator sport.

JoAnne

From Ken Ditkowsky–hope for the New Year

Posted on by
Reply

From Atty Ken Ditkowsky–hope for the new year!

Mr.  Amu:
This is going to be a better year.   I hope that you received a copy of document that we sent to the Supreme Court.    It has all the citations that you need to make your argument.
One of the things you should notice is the fact that Sawyer case = First the IARDC argued that Sawyer gave them the authority to regulate content (political) based speech; however, apparently their attorneys in addition to not reading the First Amendment failed to read the last paragraph of the case.    In your Review Board decision (and in mine) a new tact is taken.    Again drawing a distinction that is so absurd as to be intellectually dishonest they try to make a distinction between content related speech involving a legislative pronouncement and a legal proceeding.    There is no such distinction if the First Amendment is given credence.   The credence comes from reading Alvarez, Brown, Citizens United etc.    Of course Peel vs. IARDC was never mentioned by the IARDC.
Peel dealt with the IARDC’s harassment of a lawyer who placed on his letterhead that the was trial specialist.  They applied the same standard with him that they seem to apply universally – i.e. the accused lawyer who takes advantage of his First Amendment speech  is wrong and even though they have to prove their claim by claim and convincing evidence – no evidence equals clear and convincing.
The Hunter vs. Virginia (bar) is also interesting as it is a recent pronouncement from the State court that they are going to give serious consideration to the United States Supreme Court.   This case is quoted in my document.    It is now very clear that Justice Black and Justice Douglas’ view of the Bill of Rights is accepted by the Court as what our core values ought to be.    The Dred Scott decision except in your case before the IARDC does not appear to accepted by the United supreme Court.   Buck vs. Bell has a bit more acceptance as lawyers in more jurisdictions than Illinois are treated to “two generations of idiots is enough” criterion.   Maybe the fact that you are African and representing some African American clients ******
Please do not delay in filing your petition before the Supreme Court.  You can rest assured that as you said things that the government reiterated in Greylord 1 and no one has contradicted you expect that the most procrustean approach will greet you.   You cannot exceed 20 pages.    Believe me keeping the ire down to those 20 pages is very difficult.
What is most disturbing was you cannot walk down the halls of the courthouse without over-hearing one lawyer talking to another complaining of exactly the conduct that you are complaining.    Naturally no other lawyer  is going to come forth and testify that Judge x or Judge y did something that ought to be looked at by the JIB or the IARDC.    In my situation I have quoted from transcripts prepared by the official court reporter!    As Ms. Farenga in her smoking gun letter attaches a copy of the probate sharks blog = that was all that was necessary.
In JoAnne’s and my situation we have 320 ILCS 20/4 to protect us!    Indeed 735 ILCS 110/5 states the public policy and there are dozens of cases that say that the Court will not rule contrary to the public policy!
Merry Christmas!
Ken Ditkowsky
And I have to add, I believe over the last year, the IARDC has slowly come to realize, that if an attorney is not on a case, under the Sawyer case, the attorney has the right to criticize a law, a judge a statute, an opinion, a decision.  That right was established in 1950.  It seems that the only thing the IARDC is still clinging to is direct criticism of the judge herself, and then they strain to associate the decision, the opinion and the law interpreted by the judge as an assault on him or her–personally, when in fact it is all non commercial, work related speech, which is traditionally protected by the first amendment.
It is very odd how the IARDC seems to strain to bend over backward to say that my court observations, Ken’s court observations and even Mr. Amu’s amount to little more than personal attacks on the judges themselves, when nothing could be further from the truth.  I could care less what the judges do in their private lives.  I don’t care how they wear their hair, their clothes, what they do in their bedrooms, whether they knit or crochet or enjoy sports.
But what Ken and I do like to do is take a look at what is going on in particular cases–Sykes, Gore, Bedin, etc. where the parties are crying foul and see if what they are saying is true.
Ken and I and Mr. Amu all have opinions about that.  It would seem under the Sawyer and the Peel cases, the IARDC does not have jurisdiction to regulate or become involved in truth or substantial truth, and if the parties/litigants/public are crying foul, then outside attorneys can and should take a look at what is going on and comment and publish and bring any wrongful actions to light.
This is especially true in the cottage industry of GAL’s, child reps, the overly familiar attorney picking up business in the courtroom on a regular basis.  It often does not take long before someone is stepping over the line and finding nothing but a quagmire.  Been there, done seen that.
The real question is, whether the IARDC will allow honest attorneys to speak out, even in face of extreme pressure from the politicians to sweep certain unfavorable and inconvenient truths under the rug.
JoAnne

From Joanne Denison a new NFP for everyone in the most needy court divisions

Posted on by
Reply
Greetings Justice Advocates,

Justice for Everyone is to concentrate on optimizing justice in three major divisions of the nation’s court systems:  probate, domestic relations and the criminal courts. We intend to server the truly indigent clients in search of true justice and those who have been the victims of corruption or what we like to call “the unretainable client” (clients with due process or constitutional rights violations who’ve retained 5 or more attorneys)

 

—

Joanne Denison
President, Executive Director, General Counsel
Justice for Everyone NFP
Office: 773.553.1300
joanne@denisonlaw.com

Announcing the Justice for Everyone Blog!

Posted on by
Reply

Dear Readers;

Joanne Denison, President and Executive Director is proud to announce that she will start blogging about her NFP and all of her experiences in assisting others to bring justice, truth and integrity to our state and federal courts here in Chicago, Illinois and across the nation.

One of our first objectives is to hold a board meeting and provide a firm foundation to the Justice for Everyone NFP.  We next expect to hold fundraisers to help pay for all of the expenses of running a charity that assists others inside and outside the court room.

We are pleased to announce that Ms. Joanne Denison, will be elected Board Member and General Counsel at our next board meeting so that we have a staff of volunteer attorneys on board that can help others with their legal questions in the areas of probate, domestic relations and any other areas where justice has been pushed out in favor of a buddy system–or worse.

At Justice for Everyone we are a dedicated team of professionals that will work with you in solving your problems and issues in and out of the courtroom.  While we cannot guarantee any particular level of success with your case, we can help you present it in the most favorable of lights.  We can advise you of tip, tricks and numerous pitfalls.

Please bring your complaints, problems and issues to our attention. We may be able to help with real lawyers to answer your questions, court watching services and mediation services.

Our organization is most concerned that your case will involve due process, your constitutional rights–5th and 14th (due process and equal protection), that a valid summons and complaint was in fact served, that you received all requisite jurisdictional notices, that you indeed will enjoy a fair and impartial hearing.

Far too many people are ill informed when they can assert these rights, or when they were due but somehow glossed over.

Please provide us with your legal questions, comments and concerns.

From JoAnne Denison, General Counsel and Board Member