Archive for the ‘ARDC’ Category

A Word About Attorney Ken Ditkowsky

October 10, 2013

Friday, October 11th at 11:00 a.m., Illinois Attorney Ken Ditkowsky will stand in front of the ARDC Review Board* in oral argument, defending himself against a four-year suspension of his law license for his involvement in the Mary G. Sykes unlawful guardianship case.

NASGA stands firmly with Attorney Ditkowsky, as we have all along. Attorney Ditkowsky is one of a dying breed of attorneys – those who chose and went in to the legal profession to help people in need instead of just to make a lot of money; a man who is outraged by injustice; and a champion and voice for the vulnerable.

We pray for justice at this hearing.

The world can’t stand to lose an attorney like Ditkowsky; in fact, we need more like him!

*One Prudential Plaza
15th Floor
Chicago, IL
11:00 a.m. 

Illinois Lawyer Faces 3-Year License Suspension

May 23, 2013

An attorney who questioned the integrity and fairness of four judges should lose his law license for three years and until further court order, a lawyer-discipline panel recommended.

The Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission Hearing Board found ‘Lanre O.Amu knowingly made false statements or statements with reckless disregard for the truth.

“Given the respondent’s lack of remorse, failure to understand the wrongfulness of his misconduct and inclination to personalize adverse rulings, we are concerned that he will be unable to conform his future conduct to professional standards,” the hearing board report says.

The ARDC administrator filed a four-count complaint against Amu in December 2011 asserting that he made statements about the integrity of four judges that were false or made with reckless disregard as to their truth or falsity.

Amu represented clients in two personal-injury cases, a medical-malpractice action and a legal-malpractice lawsuit. Those cases were before then-Cook County Circuit Judges Francis J. Dolan and Thomas R. Chiola, along with Circuit Court Judges Lynn M. Egan and Irwin S. Solganick. 

The four judges all made rulings adverse to Amu’s clients.

Amu asserted that Dolan’s ruling in a personal-injury case barring all the plaintiff’s witnesses was improper and attacked the judge’s integrity and fairness.
Amu, who represented himself before the hearing board, testified that he “stands by [his] statements,” and his statements were 100 percent correct, the report says. Amu also called his statements “courageous.”

The ARDC administrator’s office urged that Amu be disbarred. The hearing board disagreed.

“While we recognize respondent’s misconduct is serious and deserving of substantial discipline, we do not believe disbarment, the harshest possible sanction, would better advance the goals of the disciplinary system,” says the hearing board report, which was issued last week.

“We do, however, believe a three-year suspension is necessary to impress upon respondent the wrongfulness of his misconduct and deter future misconduct.”

As for the suspension-until-further-court-order condition, the report says, “We are confident this hurdle is necessary for respondent because he continues to view his conduct as not only acceptable but necessary, lacks remorse and has demonstrated throughout these disciplinary proceedings that he will likely continue to engage in the same course of conduct whenever he believes he has been treated unfairly.”

Debra J. BraseltonThe hearing board consisted of its chair,  Debra J. Braselton (pictured at left), Andrea D. Rice and Donald D. Torisky, a non-lawyer. In the matter of Lanre O. Amu, No. 2011 PR 00106.

Amu said the ARDC is “abusing its processes” and he plans to file exceptions to the hearing board report with the ARDC Review Board, an appellate tribunal.

“What they have done there is a miscarriage of justice,” he said. “I reject it completely.”

ARDC Deputy Administrator James J. Grogan declined to comment about the hearing board report.

Full Article and Source:
Lawyer Faces 3-Year License Suspension
See Also:
Information regarding ‘Lanre O.Amu

Probate Sharks: Some Thoughts on Illinois Attorney Ken Ditkowsky

May 22, 2013

Ken Ditkowsky is a modern John Brown who placed his life on the block to fight a “peculiar” institution called slavery.

Ken Ditkowsky is fighting a “peculiar” institution within the probate court system called legalized theft.

The similarities between the two men and their struggles are haunting. Brown’s plan was a statement rather than a plan. Brown fought the might of the United States and the slave state of Virginia with 18 men; Ken Ditkowsky fights the powerful probate court and ARDC with his wits, skill and knowledge.

Even die hard abolitionists felt that Brown rocked the boat…until his off the cuff, spontaneous and eloquent 600 word speech denouncing slavery in the Virginia courtroom after he was sentenced to death.

I have faith that Ken Ditkowsky’s eloquence will be heard and his mission will succeed. *

~ Lucius Verenus, Schoolmaster,

*NASGA wholeheartedly agrees with our Shark collegues!

Some Thoughts on Ken Ditkowsky

See Also:
Northshore Live:  Interview with Ken Ditkowsky

Ken Ditkowsky on the ARDC Hearing

September 10, 2012

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

An Eyewitness Account at the Attorney Ken Ditkowsky ARDC Hearing

September 10, 2012

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: