Dear Scott,
I understand your frustration at not being allowed to testify. BUT the fact is that Osorian had disallowed all testimony which he judged to be underlying the ARDC case. You were not allowed to be in the courtroom for most of this.
Nevertheless, the excellent cross examinations of Ken and of Larry Hyman of the ARDC witnesses caused the three lawyers/guardians Schmiedlel, Stern and Farenga to admit that they were guilty of failure to exercise any of their powers to protect Mary. Farenga even had to admit that she had only seen Mary in her office, because Naperville was too far for her to travel to and Adam lived closer. Farenga and Stern admitted that they were not present when Carolyn had the safety deposit box drilled, so that they had not protected Mary's potential interest against Carolyn, even though they knew that Mary had initially accused Carolyn in her initial action of stealing $4000. Farenga admitted that most guardianships end after a few months and do not continue with no pay for three years and five months. In the cross examinations it was brought out that Schmiedel knew that the Lumberman suit was against Gloria only and Mary had no part in it. Stern made numerous factual admissions which showed that he was not acting in Mary's interest at all. But most important was that the arrogance of Mr. Apostel (or whatever his name was) allowed Ken to bring in just about everything that Torosian had previously disallowed!!! The result was that Ken got to make his closing statement during the redirect questioning of him as the adverse witness, and THEN Larry was able to make his own closing statement that the three : Schmiedel, Stern and Farenga, could have merely blocked all Ken's emails FOR ALL THE USE they made of them to investigate anything whatsoever. The implication was that their discomfort was clearly the result of their inaction and time wasting. Their witness, Dr. Patel, clearly indicated that he, an ordinary family physician, did NOT see anything in Ken's letter that he thought required him to take action; thus, the letter did not in fact contain anything implying that it was mandatory no matter how the guardians, the attorney for Carolyn Toerpe, OR the ARDC wanted to parse it. Only persons who were looking for trouble could even imagine that there was trouble.
In the meantime, even Orosian, seeing my demeanor, had to see that Apostel was doing his best to drive Ken into a stroke. I saw him take immediate though subtle action, once he saw how distressed I genuinely was (I got up and gave Larry a note, and I suspect that I was pale and possible shaking) and Ken's color all too slowly did go back to normal. I do not think Osorian wanted 911 ambulances or a corpse in his hearing room. He and Hilliken could see that Ms. Black was wagging her fanny at them and emphasizing her bosom to Apostel every time she consulted with Apostel. These hearing officers, and hearing officer Mrs. Williams could see Ms. Black rolling her eyes and making faces like a pre-teen. Both men doubtless have much prettier and younger females whose shoes (with six inch heels) fit doing the same in their offices all day long and are not in need of or in awe of her attempted stimulations. Ms. Williams probably had my reactions to Ms. Black's activities.
Until much after the hearing, I was under the false impression that the three hearing officers were employees of the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois. In fact, they are pro-bono lawyers from big firms -- at least the two men are from large and probably national law firms and I missed which firm Ms. Williams is employed by, frankly, because I thought these were the activities that qualified them for a paying job as hearing officers, not their current affiliations. Taurig-Greenberg, of course, represents many politicos, including, in the past Abamoff, and all of the Indian tribes he was setting against each other. I think it might have been involved with either Rezko or Cellini but I have not researched that. Nevertheless, if you noticed, the men's suits did not come off the sale rack at TJMaxx, Cosco, J.C.Penney, or the like. Hilliken's tonsure probably cost what Romney's, Clinton's, Kerry's did. These are the kind of people who CONSTANTLY have to guard their own personal assets against their own financial managers, their former wives, their former trophy wives, their feuding step-children -- and there have been plenty of well publicized cases in the last few years of heirs and heiresses and other business titans who have been dispossessed by family members. Also, they also probably have to appear occasionally in court, and certainly have to manage the way their cases are run. If THEY THEMSELVES happen to guess wrong as to which political or economic powerhouse to displease, they could also be hauled before the ARDC. Maybe they were not favorably impressed by a twenty eight year old twerp almost pornographically rhapsodizing about the "Disciplinary" powers he had been granted. You and I don't know anything about the fond family relations that may OR MAY NOT exist in hearing officer Williams' family, or what depredations her immediate or extended family might have suffered in the recent or more distant past from over-reaching governmental agencies.
So, until they make their finding, which could be tomorrow but is more likely to be six months or a year distant, we do not know what they are going to do. We do know that in theory, this was not a trial of the ARDC; the hearing officers, however, do have the power to make a finding in which they denote that they expected not to have to use the second day of the hearing at all, and were reserving it only for emergency purposes. Instead they were forced to listen to the Administrator attorneys wasting their time pretending that an investigation of someone accused of miscreant behavior was properly made by asking them under oath whether they were miscreants for hour after hour, whether they were forced to listen to the administrators' lawyers reading to them as if they illiterate after they had been told not to, whether they thought that it was appropriate for Ken's arrival ten minutes late on Thursday would be mentioned when they (the hearing officers) themselves did not enter the courtroom until 9:40 AM on Friday, and when Black was herself late several times after breaks (when there were no possible issues of traffic or holdups at the front desk). They may well have noticed that hours were spent detailing a sanctions motion which was declared a non-entity by an appeals court, and they could mention that. The superiors of Black and Apostel (or whatever his name is) had OFFICIAL eyes and ears in that courtroom as well, such as the lady in purple in the desk behind me, the security guard and even the court reporter.
In short, your support was much appreciated. Both Ken and Larry are experienced courtroom lawyers. Drew Peterson was convicted by the fact that Brodsky and his cohort over-reached and allowed in testimony which totally incriminated their witness beyond a reasonable doubt to the one person who took the attitude you or I as a juror would take when faced with a defendant already adjusted guilty by the 11 other jurors -- the defendant MUST be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I did take that position in the one jury trial I was a juror in, which cost eleven other people, many of whom made little more than minimum wage, two days work instead of only a day's work for the pittance of seventeen dollars a day... and they were very gracious about that because they too wanted to be sure they were doing justice). When Ken and Larry decided that the case had been made by the unforced errors of their opponents, they did not continue the game and take a chance that they might make forced or unforced errors. They made points by ending early (a 20 minute instead of a 30 minute closing statement) and that donkey Apostel surely lost even more points by taking advantage of Osorian's invitation to use up a few of those ten minutes.
So if the panel is straight, they had all the evidence they needed that the proceeding was a waste of time and money. If they are not straight, no facts would change their minds!
~Judy Ditkowsky
For more information on the Ken Ditkowsky/ARDC hearing:
ProbateSharks
Straight?
ReplyDeleteI would disown my child if he/she announced they wanted to go to law school!
What ARDC should do is displine the attorneys who brought this unnessary action against Ken Ditkowsky.
ReplyDeleteThank you Judy Ditkowsky. Reading what transpired is painful, it scares me and it should scare society into action. The days of secrecy, working in closed door hearings in the dark without the benefit of light, the eyes and ears are on the proceedings, the days of secrecy are over, we demand full disclosure.
ReplyDeleteThoughts and prayers are with the Ditkowsky's at this difficult time.
Is the author of this eyewitness account of the ARDC hearing Judy Ditkowsky Attorney Ken Ditkowsky's wife, his daughter, daughter-in-law, a relative?
ReplyDeleteHearing this from a family member's perspective is chilling, the impact has no end.
It sounds like this could have easily been a 911 emergency situation all this because a lawyer had the courage and strength to stand up for what he believes are the wrongdoings all under color of law.
I was an eyewitness to a WORKMAN'S compensation hearing in Chicago IL a case regading a blue collar worker who died suddenly and instantly at work.
The insured company who employed him did not want to pay the Workman's Compensation claim to his family for his loss of life, death by electrocution.
So the self insured company played the I'm not paying game go get a lawyer and sue us. A family member of mine was a main witness to the death scene oh that company lawyer was going at the platintiff's witness like he was Richard Speck.
I wanted to get out of chair and slap the _____ out of him. Witness went snow white, but he held up, standing by the truth and that was 20 years ago but it's still fresh in my mind.
Verdict: Family of deceased blue collar worker did win their claim although 1/3 of the 20 years of Workman Compensation payments went to the plaintiff's lawyer.
Incredibly biased, childish assessment of an attorney's disciplinary commission hearing. Ramblings about a woman "wagging her fanny," size of her shoes, quality of mens' suits don't get it.
ReplyDeleteShame on NASGA for publishing this and scads more gossip about Mary G. Sykes' probate case. BTW, openly criticizing am attorney discipline commission isn't the way to encourage more sactions against exploitive, opportunistic attorneys - is it?
Thank you Judy Ditkowsky for sharing your insight of the hearing.
ReplyDeleteI hope and pray that the truth and goodness prevails.
Wishing for a miracle on the 18th floor of the Daley Center.... I'm wishing for a court system in which the wards are treated with respect, and not as cash cows to fill the tills of the attorneys, judges, nursing home owners, and unethical guardians (which includes nurses and social workers).
The 18th floor has become a hotbed of greed and corruption.
Very difficult time waiting for good news or bad news then what? This is torture to a person acting with good faith intentions while his family is forced to watch their loved one stay strong against all the odds. Best to the Ditkowsky family, his law firm, his fiends and supporters.
ReplyDeleteThank you for the eyewitness account. Ken Ditkowsky should be able to sleep soundly after the hearing. Now we'll see if ARDC can do the same.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 2, the shame lies with the lawyers involved in the Mary Sykes case. Comments about shoes and fannies are pretty harmless compared to Mary Sykes losing her rights and her home.
ReplyDeleteSometimes us humans must look beyond the horrors and whores of the Sykes case and and take note of the oppositions mannerisms, professional or lack of professional decor and yes even when a First Chair is wearing high heels that are one size too big! Micro expressions and body language is always important! All said nothing reported was untrue and all in this emotional case is a reality no human being should face, especially a 76 year old attorney who is a lost breed of attorneys who, despite challenging conditions has stood his ground and won't be silenced -- I imagine that anonymous 2 is a member of the opposition who if she or he was not in the wrong and a coward would have signed their name! From my heart I thank all of you as I know my mother would be thanking Ken and all of the men and woman supporting Ken: my other Mart G Sykes would be still hugging and thanking Ken if she was not a hostage in the home of a named respondant to a protective order Carolyn Toerpe!!!! I have not been allowed to see or talk to my mother since March of 2011: I love her very much.
ReplyDeleteComment to offended Anon about NASGA posting the eyewitness account of the hearing. Body language is imporatant, how a person presents and conducts themselves in a courtroom setting needs to be duly noted to get the full picture. Sometimes the truth is not flattering, so firm up about it.
ReplyDeleteAnd I agree who and what brought Ken Ditkowsky to this hearing is the bigger and more important picture of how Mary Sykes was stripped of her rights.
Think this can't happen to you or someone you love? Yes it can and we'll be reading about your story here at NASGA.