Ken Ditkowsky on the ARDC Hearing

The second day of trial - by agreement with my direct testimony. Larry had a funeral, and the panel had expressed the fact that it was not going to allow him the time to attend the funeral. (his aunt - or some other close relative had died, and in Jewish tradition the funeral was required to be held within I believe 48 hours) As it would have been extremely difficult for me to conduct my own examination, Larry had to do it. Thus we were accommodated.

The net was the fact that the morning was taken up by my examination. After Lunch it was Dr. Patel and Farenga. The last witness of the day was me - and my cross examination. Dr. Patel testified that he received a letter from me and he just put the letter in his file. He did nothing with it and never responded to it. Farenga was the next witness and after telling people that she received over 500 e-mails from me. (The number that she received was more probably less than fifty) she admitted that she never blocked a single e-mail or did anything to stop the flow. Indeed, she was so hungry to hear from me that she ran out and when to not only your blog but NASGA and others so that she could garner every golden word that I uttered. She then testified that 1) it is higly unusual for a GAL to still be in the picture after a appointment of a guardian, and 2) even though she was well aware that Carolyn was opening safety deposit boxes neither she nor Stern really cared and they ahve no idea what is in the box. She told the panel that her interest in the case and whether or not Mary was being railroaded so as to lose her liberty, her property, her civil rights and human rights was so intense that she never went to visit Mary! Carolyn brought Mary to Farenga's office so that Farenga could write a report.

Larry 'ate Farenga up." (What a disgusting way of putting that!) It was reported that after she left the stand she was crying as she left the ARDC proceeding.

My cross examination was memorable. The young male ARDC attorney repeatedly attempted to intimidate and brow beat me. He kept asking me if I was sorry for my action in reporting to law enforcement and others the violations of Mary and Gloria Sykes' rights. I informed him that I not only had a legal responsibility to do so, but as a human being I had a responsibility. Indeed, I said: As long as the Lord allows me to reside on earth and the stars and stripes flies over the United States of America I would fully and completely exercise my First Amendment Rights. He then asked me if I was repentant! I told him essentially that acting as my conscience required was an act that I was proud of and had no intention of repenting.

In final argument Ms. Black pointed out that my failure to be intimidated by the specter of the ARDC was grounds for disbarrment and I should be disbarred. My worst crime was not participating in the 'cover up' and therefore the public might discover that the appointment as 'court official' (i.e. Farenga, Stern, et al) was not an acknowledgment of 'sainthood' and that the 17 judges and the dozens who had to resign during Greylord was an anomaly and not business as usual. Speaking the truth about the 2nd oldest profession is clearly unethical.

The panel took the case under advisement.

~Ken Ditkowsky
http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/