Attorney Ken Ditkowsky Answers ARDC Complaint

"I just finished up an edit of the Reply. I am forwarding this response to the various blogs with the hope that they will post it. I want to demonstrate that now all attorneys shake in their boots when confronted by a wrongful disciplinary action reasonably intended to inhibit our free speech. The ARDC case that was filed against me is 'bogus' and intended to shut me up.

It is not going to happen as I was called a liar, even though every word I communicated was absolutely objectively true and based upon the information of people who I respect and believe to be credible.

I sent our requests to admit to the ARDC as I wanted to give them an opportunity to admit or deny the facts that I allegedly lied concerning. The choice was very simple. Admit that certain facts are true and dismiss the case, or on the hand deny that the facts were true and prove them. Instead, the ARDC admitted that they never investigated the facts and did not have sufficient information. Illinois law requires a degree of due diligence before filing a lawsuit. It appears that the attorney for the ARDC ignored that requirement in total and just filed a complaint that accused me of being a liar and posted it on the internet.

That scenario suggests something very sinister and wrong! I do not intend to allow such a scenario to remain in secret or to be covered up. I also do not intend to allow the Human and Civil Rights of either Mary or Gloria or any of the other aggreived individuals similarly situated to be just forfeited. My latest missile is:"


BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD OF THE ILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATION AND DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION

In the Matter of:

KENNETH KARL DITKOWSKY,

Commission No. 2012 PR 00014
Attorney-Respondent,
No. 642754

Reply
To Response to Motion to Dismiss Complaint
Now comes Kenneth Ditkowsky and renews his Motion to dismiss this ARDC complaint by this reply and in support of the motion states:
Prefatory Statement
Objection is made to the lack of candor that the Administrator’s response to this Motion to Dismiss. For instance in paragraph 1 the Administrator after fortuitously denigrating the Motion with editorial comment states a fact that is untrue. The Administrator claims that there are no affidavits in support of the Motion. In fact there are several. The affidavit of Gloria Sykes and the affidavit of Scott Evans are both provided in support of the motion. Had whoever drafted the Response read the Motion, that person would have noted these affidavits.

Of a more serious nature is the fact that the alleged Administrator’s Response to the Request to Admit is an admission that either no investigation was done prior to the filing of the complaint herein, or the Administrator has not been candid. If the Administrator in fact, prior to bringing his complaint, had done the investigation required by Supreme Court Rule 137 the administrator would have been able to admit or deny all the facts requested to be admitted or denied by the Request to Admit. (The Supplemental Motion to Dismiss addresses this issue.)

Reply
An Attorney and his/her clients are afforded Constitutional Rights and the protections of 735 ILCS 110/et seq. The protections of the Constitution of the United States of America and the State of Illinois are applicable to even the disciplinary proceedings of the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission. Cavalier responses to serious issues may be the current vogue in some legal circles, but the issues involved in this proceeding and its related proceedings are indeed serious. The fact is that the Administrator in his response to the First Wave Requests to Admit reveals that he “does not have sufficient knowledge to admit or deny ***” the very facts that he must allege in his complaint. Yet, the Administrator concludes that the respondent lied and then wrongfully published the defamation on the ‘web!’ Such perfidy is not only chilling, but an admission that this instant complaint is grossly improper and intentionally violative of intent and spirit of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137[1] and 735 ILCS 110 et seq. The aforesaid Response to the First Wave Request to Admit is attached hereto and made part hereof as exhibit A as if set out in detail and incorporated by reference.

The granting of authority to the Administrator was not a grant to run rough shod over the rights of citizens, including attorneys. Even a cursory examination of the complaint raises the question of the First Amendment applicability. Count 1 misinterprets words and phrases of an inquiry letter in the most procrustean manner so as to distort the letter’s meaning and seek discipline against respondent for words and phrases that were never communicated. Such a request coupled with the pejorative averments that the non-uttered statement was a lie raises ‘red flags’ and suggests an improper motive in bringing the complaint.

The conclusions of the 2nd count are equally troubling as once again the derogatory ‘name calling’ substitutes for the pleading of facts. In particular, as the Sodini criterion according to our view of the record in In re: Sykes was never met there are no judicial officials and in particular Guardian Ad Litem Stern and Farenga, approximately two years after their appointment, have no standing in the probate proceedings. The plenary guardian and her attorney are similarly acting sans jurisdiction. As the response to the Request to Admit indicates that the Administrator does not have knowledge of such a basic fact, how does the Administrator get the authority to publish a ‘naked statement’ to the public that the respondent is a ‘liar!’

More significantly, all the statements that are alleged to have been made by the respondent are clearly protected statements under the 1st and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution. The 2-619 Motion is thus appropriate to redress the chilling prospect of a citizen being denied Equal Protection of the Law and his right to the First Amendment protections of protest, speech, and assembly. It is significant that the Administrator chooses to ignore these basic Constitutional Rights and at the very same time respond to Requests to Admit with:
“The Administrator does not have sufficient knowledge to admit or deny***”
Supreme Court Rule 137 admonishes exactly this type of conduct on the part of the attorney for the Administrator (i.e. bringing a complaint without doing any due diligence or investigation of the facts so as to be able to certify that the facts alleged are true) and 42 USCA 1983 counsels that color of Statute ought not be employed to deny a citizen of his/her Constitutional laws.

735 ILCS 110 et seq. makes it very clear that a legal proceeding cannot be used to silence a citizen. It may be very inconvenient that Ms. Sykes, Mr. Evans and others have verified by their affidavits the very facts that the Administrator will have to prove false to prove me a ‘liar!’ The Sykes/Evans’ affidavits stand in stark contradiction to the statement of the Administrator in paragraph 1 of his response. The said affidavits also stand as strong contradiction to the conclusions pleaded by the Administrator.

It is respectfully submitted that if the attorney for the Administrator had read the Motion before it was responded to, the complaint would have been non-suited. It is further respectfully submitted had the files of the ARDC and the complaints filed by various friends, relatives, and neighbors of Mary Sykes been reviewed prior to the filing of the complaint filed herein the complaint would never have been filed. Even in 21st Century America the objective truth is not a lie, and the publication of the truth – no matter when or where – is not a prevarication. Similarly, to protect the rights of citizens and to prevent exactly what appears to have happened to Mary Sykes and Gloria Sykes in the Sykes case the legal profession has been very jealous of protecting the First Amendment Rights of the brethren. As a profession lawyers cannot tolerate the deprivation of human rights and/or civil rights of anyone – including them.

When an attorney demands the investigation of the conduct of such ‘august’ persons as a guardian ad litem and an attorney for a plenary guardian, in a case in which a senior citizen is deprived of her liberty, property, and human rights under extremely suspicious circumstances, such effort should be aided and abetted in the interest of justice – not punished. This instant reply draws attention to the Affidavits of Gloria Sykes and Scott Evans. This panel is requested to examine the Court file in the Sykes case and is respectfully requested to take judicial notice of the same. In the Court file, unless I have misread the docket and the transcripts of Mr. Schmiedel’s statements, the Jurisdictional Sodini notices and affidavits of service are missing. As they were never sent by the attorney for the plenary guardian *****. As the Appellate Court of Illinois has noted (in Sodini) these notices are jurisdictional Mr. Stern, Ms. Farenga and the plenary guardian are engaging in their alleged pernicious activities ultra vires. Right or wrong, I have not waived my First Amendment Rights and any attempt to silence me or diminish my said rights is not only wrongful, but clearly a violation of the policy of the State of Illinois as stated in 735 ILCS 110/5.

Moreover, the Response to the First Wave Request to Admit is a clear admission that Rule 137 was ignored by the attorney for the Administrator in drafting the complaint. The Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission in being charged with regulating Attorney conduct should be a ‘Cesar’s wife!’ The commission is charged with not only being an example of legal ethics and propriety, but being an example to the profession. It is respectfully suggested that the complaint, and the two responses are examples of the nadir of the profession rather than the best and, therefore, the complaint filed herein should be dismissed with prejudice.

Wherefore pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-619 this complaint be dismissed, and a complete and through investigation be commenced as to the Sykes case and pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 137 the motivations for bringing this instant complaint in the manner it was filed.[2]

Respectfully Submitted

Kenneth K. Ditkowsky

Attorney number 0642754
Pro se
5940 W. Touhy Ave
Niles, Illinois 60714
847 600 3421

________________________________________
[1] Had a private attorney acted with such careless disregard the attorney would be subject to sanctions and possible discipline. Rule 137 even in its most liberal interpretation requires enough due diligence on the part of the attorney drafting a complaint that the attorney (and his client) has knowledge of the basic facts upon which the complaint is founded. It is respectfully submitted that this is not true in the instant complaint against me.
[2] CALLING A PRACTICING ATTORNEY A 'LIAR' AND PUBISHING THE SAME ON THE INTERNET IS NOT SOMETHING THAT CAN BE TAKEN LIGHTLY OR IGNORED. As the affidavits of Sykes and Evans clearly refute any suggestion that I lied as to anything this is a serious matter and a clear violation of 735 ILCS 110/ and 42 USCA 1983. On day one the attorney for the Administrator had a duty based upon the ‘traditions of the bar’ (if not an ethical responsibility) to do a full investigate of the charges that were brought and to have a clear knowledge of the facts upon which the charges were being brought. In the instant scenario the ARDC has received numerous citizen complaints totally consistent with the statements allegedly made by me. The Court record is also consistent with the charges that have been made by Gloria Sykes et al. No one can deny that Mary Sykes was helped by Court employed people to prepare a Petition For A Protective Order. No one can deny that this Petition was duly filed and never heard. No one can deny that neither Guardian ad Litem petitioned the Court to voice any complaint as to a possible conflict of interest on the part of the plenary guardian.

No one can deny the videos posted by various citizens on the internet, and no one can deny that Mary Sykes in the early videos appears to be perfectly competent. Indeed, no one can deny that not a scintilla of medical evidence was heard by the Probate Court prior to declaring Mary Sykes incompetent. Nor can anyone deny the transcripts of August 2009 and August 2010. Similarly, no one can deny that the 14 day Sodini notices are claimed by the close relatives of Mary Sykes to have not been served and more importantly Mr. Schmiedel has not made a clear statement stating that these vital notices were indeed properly served as required by Statute. These notices are jurisdictional as they are the protection against vulnerable people being ‘railroaded’ into the loss of liberty and property by dishonest practitioners.

Similarly no one can deny that family members of Mary Sykes have disclosed that the safety deposit box contained valuables and these valuables were never inventoried. The record is clear that Mr. Stern, and Ms. Farenga failed to alert the Court to this oversight. Of course, the record indicates that Mary Sykes had many emergency room visits. The probate record does not reveal any report of these visits by the GAL. It is respectfully submitted that the record in the probate division upon which the Administrator must rely upon to aver that I am liar suggests that some very unusual events have taken place that are disingenuous and possibly criminal. THE PROBLEM THAT THE RESPONSE TO THE REQUEST TO ADMIT DISCLOSES is that the Attorney drafting the complaint apparently was ignorant of these serious factual scenarios.

See Also:
Mary Sykes, Illinois Victim