Memorandum:
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Re: Communications with Ms. L. Black Esq.
To: Ms. Gloria Sykes
Ms. JoAnne Denison
Dear Gloria and JoAnne.
As you are aware I received a letter from Ms. Black attempting to explain the fact that she contacted Ms. Denison. Even though it is clearly documented that she made contact when she knew or should have known that I was representing Ms. Denison once again Ms. Black says that my statement was inaccurate. This time she stopped short of calling me ‘liar!’
The following facts are known:
1. Ms. Black in Feb/Mar 2012 contacted a lawyer represented person (Ms. Denison) without first obtaining the consent of her attorney.
2. Attorney Joel Brodsky ( per report of Gloria Sykes ) informed the Court that he had conversations with Ms Black concerning disciplinary proceedings (not yet filed) against Kenneth Ditkowsky. (Ms. Sykes reports that Mr. Brodsky’s statements are on Court transcripts)
The issue that confronts us is whether or not these lapses in judgment must be reported to the ARDC by Ms. Denison and me. As Ms. Black is a lawyer employed by the ARDC, the ARDC is charged with knowledge of the acts of its employees. Thus, as a matter of law, there is no need to do a vain act – the ARDC knows of its attorney’s breaches and thus the report would accomplish nothing.
On the practical side, I really do not care who Ms. Black speaks with in connection with the Sykes matter. The separation of Mary Sykes from her liberty, property, human rights and civil rights is outrageous per se. Any attempt at justification or rationalization of what has happened to either Mary or Gloria is so ‘lame’ that it calls attention to breakdown in the Justice system as it applies to Elder Abuse and Financial Exploitation. In other words the more day light that shines on this matter the better. Had
Ms. Black requested consent to speak to Ms. Denison – I probably would have consented as the complaint filed against Ms. Denison by Ms. Farenga is so flawed and disrespectful of the Rights Privileges and Immunities of a citizen of the United States of America that it by its nature is ethically challenged. How can a licensed attorney suggest that it is unethical and improper for a citizen to exercise her First Amendment Right and join in the call for an investigation of clearly wrongful acts by a Court appointed attorney. I must assume that Ms. Black recognizes this fact and will act in a proper manner. I note that she dropped the request that she (Black) made of Ms. Denison for an interview. I assume that the IARDC is not going to institute disciplinary proceedings against Ms. Denison for exercising her First Amendment Rights.
Just a few years ago attorneys reported the United States of America criminal conduct by certain Judges. (Greylord) Following Ms. Farenga’s reasoning each of those attorneys would be subject to punishment by the Illinois Attorney Registration and Discipline Commission for reporting the criminal conduct. Indeed I would have been called a ‘liar’ when I reported that Ms. Holtzer had solicited me to purchase insurance when one of my cases was assigned to her husband. By the definitions that are used today my lying to and about Judicial officials would have continued when I complained that the Judge ruled against my clients and the City of Chicago attorneys recognized his ruling as strange. The City attorneys also would have been subjected to discipline for filing a certificate of error which resulted in the reversal of Judge Holtzer’s order.
We have come a long way in Illinois! The fact that the IARDC ignores the pleas of citizens in relation to Ms. Farenga, Mr. Stern and Mr. Schmiedel is troubling; however, the issue is whether Ms. Denison and I have to complain concerning Ms. Black’s alleged breaches of discipline to the ARDC. My answer is no – however, if you wish to provide her with a copy of this memo, you have my permission to do so.
Ken Ditkowsky
Legal Disclaimer–Although this is obvious, no person in this blog has been accused of any wrongdoing, crime or even arrested unless stated otherwise from a website reporting actual arrests and convictions. We are stating our opinions and we have the right to do this. Only the particular author is responsible for his or her content. (So don’t blame me if you dislike some posts from someone else. This site is newsworthy because it is picked up automatically by many other blogs and is therefore protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Illinois State Constitution and violations will be taken seriously with charges under the Illinois Citizens Participation Act. We ARE participating in government here–we are lawyers trying to make a difference to make things better for grandma and grandpa. We don’t care how much money you’re making–directly or indirectly from Probate or a nursing home or home health care wired-in business. Do yourself a favor and get a different job, it’s not worth it. And if you’re someone filing ARDC complaints against this blog, we are all exercising our rights to disseminate important news to protect the rights of the elderly and respect their wishes. Again, go get another job–it’s not worth it.
No comments:
Post a Comment