Disbarred AZ Attorney Claims He’s a Victim of Corruption

Former Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas is speaking out for the first time about being disbarred.

Protesters clashed with supporters at Thomas’ news conference.

A judge ruled to disbar him for pursuing politically motivated investigations with no probable cause.

A state bar panel found him in violation of more than two dozen rules of ethics.

He insists he’s the victim of corruption.

“Arizona, after what happened yesterday, has become Mexico,” said Thomas at the news conference. “The people of this community need to understand what happened yesterday when my law license was targeted.”

Thomas said he was an honest prosecutor who was unjustly smeared and tarnished.

The sanctions against him and his two prosecutors are set to begin in a month, but they could be delayed if Thomas appeals to the state Supreme Court.

Source:
Disbarred Arizona Attorney Claims He’s a Victim of Corruption

TX: Ethics, Judicial Conduct Agencies Get Lawmaker’s Scrutiny

State lawmakers on Tuesday blasted the secrecy of a state agency that polices misconduct by Texas judges and seemed receptive to a proposal for more public disclosure and enforcement of ethics laws that govern legislators and other public officials.

The Sunset Advisory Commission did not formally vote on the recommended changes for the state Commission on Judicial Conduct or the Texas Ethics Commission. But panelists made it clear during a daylong public hearing at the Capitol that they are leaning toward reforms.

The 12-member commission, made up of five senators, five House members and two public members, periodically measures the performance of state agencies to determine whether they should continue operating or be merged or closed.

Texas Ethics Commission staff recommended strengthening the agency’s enforcement abilities, reducing penalties for minor paperwork mistakes and making more disclosure documents available to the public online.

Sunset commission chairman Dennis Bonnen, R-Angleton, at several points seemed to support many of the proposed changes, which were endorsed by a parade of government-watchdog advocates and citizens.

If the panel eventually supports the staff recommendations, the ethics commission could end up with its first-ever enforcement division and greater power to subpoena records to investigate complaints.

“We feel it’s in the public’s interest to have an open situation where there’s daylight all through the transactions we have,” said Tom Ramsay, a retired lawmaker from East Texas who chairs the ethics commission.

Even so, changing ethics laws at the Capitol has been difficult in the past. The commission was created two decades ago after a legislative influence-peddling scandal. No matter how much support reforms might seem to have at a meeting, approval can be derailed after lawmakers ponder whether they really want to give an agency more power to bust them for violations.

Sen. Robert Nichols, R-Jacksonville, questioned whether the changes might be misperceived by the public.

“Some of us are concerned that the watchdog groups are … going to holler that we’re watering down the ethics rules,” he said.

Full Article and Source:
Ethics, Judicial Conduct Agencies Get Lawmakers’ Scrutiny

Watch the Sunset Advisory Commission Hearing

AL State Bar Rejects Complaint Against Lawyer Richard Horne in Fake Will Case

The Alabama State Bar has determined that there is insufficient evidence to discipline lawyer Richard Horne, whom a local insurance agent had accused of ethical lapses related to a will that a jury determined was a fake.

A one-page letter from the general counsel’s office of the State Bar informed the complainant, David Stroecker, that it was not taking action.

“The Disciplinary Commission has completed its review and consideration of this matter, and has determined that there is insufficient basis for a finding that there has been a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct,” the letter states. “Accordingly, the Disciplinary Commission has dismissed the complaint.”

Stroecker, a Mobile insurance agent whose stepdaughters contested the will, said he was surprised and disappointed by the bar’s decision. He said he plans to appeal and added that State Bar officials told him they would consider an appeal if he had new evidence. He said he plans to present the Alabama Supreme Court ruling upholding the Probate Court judgment.

Full Article and Source:
State Bar Rejects Complaint Against Lawyer Richard Horne in Fake Will Case

See Also:
Allegations of Faked Will, Crumbling Finances, Dog Prominent Lawyer

TN Legislature Enacts New Discipline System for Judges

After years of sometimes heated argument, the House sent to the governor Monday night compromise legislation that puts into place a new system for disciplining judges for misdeeds on the bench.

Final approval came on an 88-5 House vote without any debate. The Senate had approved SB2671 unanimously earlier.

Though the votes came with virtually no discussion, the debate over the past three years has included repeated charges that the present Court of the Judiciary ignored judicial misdeeds and operated in unwarranted secrecy. Former Knox County Criminal Court Judge Richard Baumgartner was offered by critics of the current system as a prime example of its shortcomings.

Source:
Legislature Enacts New Discipline System for Tenn. Judges

Reimbursements to Victims of Lawyer Theft Bring Fiscal Year Total to Nearly Half a Million Dollars

At its final meeting of fiscal year 2012, the Wisconsin Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection Committee approved $35,790 in reimbursements to 11 victims of lawyer theft. The committee considered 26 claims, denied 12 claims, and deferred three to its Nov. 9 meeting. The dollar amount sought for the deferred claims totals $9,875.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court established the fund in 1981 to reimburse people who lost money through dishonest acts of Wisconsin attorneys. Reimbursement decisions are made at the discretion of the committee, which meets three times a year.

In this fiscal year (July 1, 2011 – June 30, 2012), the fund approved $463,421 to 31 victims of 16 lawyers. Since its inception in 1981, the fund has approved $5.1 million involving 710 claims and 160 attorneys.

Full Article and Source:
Reimbursements to Victims of Lawyer Theft Bring Fiscal Year Total to Nearly Half a Million Dollars

TN Panel to Judge Judges Gets Overhaul

The Tennessee Senate has voted to replace a panel that oversees judges – one that has been criticized in the past several years for being too secretive and too lenient on judges.

If you have a complaint about the way a judge handled your case, you can turn to a group called the Court of the Judiciary to investigate. But for years, people like Ginger Franklin have complained the process is broken.

“It seems to me, to be a bunch of judges overseeing a bunch of judges. Is that the fox guarding the hen house?” Franklin says.

The Court of the Judiciary meets in secret. It rarely punishes judges – it has only suspended one judge in two years – and the cases drag on and on.

“A year and a half later, nothing is settled,” Franklin says.

Franklin filed a complaint against Judge Randy Kennedy. He appointed a conservator to control her life after she tumbled down the stairs and had a brain injury. Franklin filed a complaint that Kennedy didn’t appoint an attorney for her, like he was supposed to. Before she knew it, her conservator had sold off everything she owned. Her house was auctioned for $36,000.

“My townhouse was emptied. My bank accounts were cleared out. My car was gone. I was liquidated,” Franklin says. “And he signed off on everything that was done.”

The Court of the Judiciary received 703 complaints against judges over a two-year period. Only one of the judges was suspended. Nine received public reprimands.

Over the past year, legislators like Sen. Mae Beavers have worked to overhaul the system.

“Judges are elected officials. And if there’s a problem, I think the public needs to know it,” Beavers said in September.

The Senate reforms are designed to make it easier for people filing complaints. It also changes the makeup of the board; and for the first time, the board’s rulings are more transparent. They have to make monthly and quarterly reports to the legislature. The bill now goes to the House.

Source: (Note: This article is reprinted in its entirety)
Panel to Judge Judges Gets Overhaul

Senate Bill to Change Makeup of TN Judiciary Court Passes

A proposal to change the makeup of the entity that investigates complaints against Tennessee judges has passed the Senate.

Republican Sen. Mike Faulk of Kingsport is the primary sponsor of the legislation that was approved 30-0 on Thursday.

The measure would terminate the Court of the Judiciary and replace it with a 16-member board of judicial conduct, which would pretty much have the same function as the court.

Under the proposal, the board must report four times a year to the chief clerk of each legislative chamber, information that includes “complaints opened, closed or pending” and “the number of complaints for which probable cause has been found.”

The companion bill is being scheduled for a vote on the House floor.

Full Article and Source:
Senate Bill Would Change Make Up of Judiciary Court

IN: Attorney Stacy Sheedy Pleads Guilty in $596K Fraud

An Indianapolis attorney and accountant pleaded guilty to theft as part of an agreement with prosecutors.

An investigation discovered late last year that $596,000 was missing from accounts managed for clients by attorney Stacy H. Sheedy. She was charged in January.

Sheedy admitted to two counts of theft, according to a release from Marion County Prosecutor Terry Curry, and will receive a sentence of up to eight years. Sentencing is scheduled for April 26 in Marion Superior Court.

The guardianship account supported an elderly widow with Alzheimer’s disease residing in a nursing home. Grand jury investigators uncovered unauthorized withdrawals and unaccounted-for funds from the guardianship accounts totaling more than $172,000, the release stated. Sheedy made at least 32 unauthorized withdrawals over six months, investigators found.

That discovery led grand jury investigators to also examine Sheedy’s role as trustee of a family trust. A brokerage account within the trust was valued at $501,000 when Sheedy became trustee, the release stated, and was valued at $168 in January. Prosecutors alleged that Sheedy made unauthorized withdrawals from the trust account of $412,500.

Full Article and Source:
Indianapolis Attorney Stacy Sheedy Pleads Guilty in $596,000 Fraud

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

MEMORANDUM

To: All friends and victims of Senior citizen abuse, and Financial

March 14, 2012

By now, you should be aware that after a large number of complaints were filed with the Illinois Attorney Registration and Discipline Commission complaining about the antics of the two guardian ad litem and the attorney for the plenary guardian, the commission determined that they should prosecute me and call me a ‘liar.’ The ARDC elected to prosecute me for complaining that the Civil rights and the Human Rights of Mary Sykes and Gloria Sykes were violated by attorneys appointed by the Court to protect the rights of Mary Sykes.

The complaint that was filed against me should be available on the ARDC website. I have prepared a Motion to Dismiss the complaint as the complaint while replete with distortions and ‘Alice in Wonderland’ conclusions fails to state a claim. Indeed, had the author of the complaint done any due diligence – such as reading the numerous communicates from ordinary citizens the complaint would never have been filed. That said, Mr. Chambers has forwarded to various active groups copies of the Motion and the exhibits. It is hoped that they post the Motion and the exhibits so as to energize everyone who is concerned with ‘substance’ and not ‘form’ to join in the effort to ‘save’ both Mary Sykes and Gloria Sykes. (see Gloria’s affidavit attached to the Motion) Gloria Sykes made the error of attempting to ‘fight’ for her mother’s liberty, right to own and enjoy her property, and to fraternize with her friends, and family. The consequences are a series of Court orders that have rendered her homeless and unable to access her property. Mary is just deprived of all her liberty, property and human rights. While all this is going on Mary’s substantial estate (estimated at a million dollars) has been reported to have been dissipated.

I have filed a ‘human rights’ complaint with the United Nations. I expect absolutely nothing from the effort, however, it has had one consequence. I have been called a liar pursuant to the new definition. A lie is any combination of words and phrases that does not advance the agenda of the political elite. The word and the concept of accuracy and/or truth are irrelevant to the new definition.

As I am in the middle of my seventh decade of life, I am a word conservative. I find it very difficult to refer to a chattel mortgage as a ‘hard loan,’ or a guarantee as a ‘credit swap.’ The concept of a liar being a person who tells the truth about of quasi or de jure public official is just too much for me. I am hoping that some of the blogs will post this appeal to all ‘word conservatives’ to join arms and protest such radical changes in the English language. In the meantime, I would like to urge everyone to raise their voice and join the hue and cry to reject ‘form’ and demand substance, i. e . ‘free Mary Sykes while she still has time to enjoy some her life!

I had a terrible thought just now – can you imagine the guardian ad litem in the Sykes case being judges! This type of travesty is entirely possible if you take democracy for granted. It is not a spectator sport. The political elite feed us ‘form’ and are vague as to substance. The recent harassments of Gloria Sykes will limited and directed to harass and deprive her of her civil rights are a stark reminder that it was not too long ago men in ‘brown shirts’ took over a country and plunged the world into a nightmare. Elder Abuse is doing the same one senior at the time – that senior could be me! Ergo ****.

Ken Ditkowsky
http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

See Also:
Mary Sykes, Illinois Victim

In the Matter of Kenneth Karl Ditkowsky