Gloria’s ARDC complaint against Peter Schmeidel, esq.

Posted on March 31, 2012 by Joanne M Denison

ARDC Chicago and Springfield offices

Via facsimile

March 31, 2012

From: Gloria Jean Sykes 773-910-33310

6016 N. Avondale Ave.

Chicago, IL 60631

RE: Attorney Peter Schmiedel

To Whom It May Concern at the ARDC,

(Most of this was filed with the ARDC in Nov. 2011: as I heard nothing from the ARDC regarding this complaint, I am refiling and adding recent violations perpetrated by attorney Peter Schmiedel. Please note that Peter Schmiedel instructs other lawyers and law enforcement on how to investigate and prove)

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR COMPLAINT(S) AGAINST ATTORNEY PETER SCHMIEDEL:

Professionalism should be a part of every Illinois lawyer’s daily practice, or so I’ve read and been told. Attorney Peter Schmiedel may have memorized the Rules of Professional Responsibility in order to procure a license to practice law, but clearly he has failed in application. The rules, he can argue are unclear, and ethical dilemmas, ambiguous, but since he filed his appearance In Re the Estate of Mary G. Sykes, 2009 P 4585, Peter Schmiedel has repeatedly distorted the facts, misrepresented the facts, maliciously and intentionally LIED not only to Probate and Forcible judges, but also a Federal Judge (Transcript attacked from Bankruptcy proceeding, October 25, 2011): Mr. the rules and case law make clear what is required. In Jerman v. Carlisle, it is noted, “ignorance of the law is no excuse****) Pursuant Winthrop v. Supreme Court of Illinois, 848 N.E. 2d 961 (2006) 219 Ill.2d 526 302 Ill.Dec. 397, “Our goal in imposing discipline on an attorney is not to punish the attorney, but rather to protect the integrity of the legal profession, and protect the administration of justice from reproach”. (also see In Re Cutright, 2009), Peter Schmiedel must be disbarred and sanctioned!

Arguing via Winthrop, HOW ABOUT AT LEAST PROTECTING THE INTEGRITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION?

Schmiedel has violated so many of the Rules of Professional Conduct, it is impossible to name them all, although I will touch on a few.

Counts I, II, III and IV are set before you clearly and concisely as possible: court transcripts have been provided to you in the past: PLEASE TURN TO TRANSCRIPTS OF October 25, 2011 where Peter Schmiedel appeared before a Federal Judge Hollis n Bankruptcy Court.134 Ill.2d R. 3.3(a)(2). (1) failure to disclose a material fact to a tribunal (134 Ill.2d R. 3.5(h)); (2) engaged in conduct involving fraud, dishonesty, deceit, or misrepresentation (210 Ill.2d R. 8.4(a)(4)); (3) engaged in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice (210 Ill.2d R. 8.4(a)(5)); and (4) engaged in conduct “which tends to defeat the administration of justice or to bring the courts or the legal profession into disrepute” in violation of Supreme Court Rule 770 (210 Ill.2d R. 770).

(1) FAILURE TO DISCLOSE A MATERIAL FACT TO A TRIBUNAL.

Peter SChmiedel committed violations of Rule 3.3(a)(2) when he failed to advise the Probate Court that his client closed Mary G. Sykes’ account at the Pullman Bank and removed all the contents from a safety deposited box at the same location, one that had not only Mary G. Sykes’ name on it I was a renter too!

1. Peter Schmiedel knows his client is in possession of a substantial amount of Mother’s funds, as well as legal contracts between Mother and Me, Mother and lawyers, including a draft of the new Trust mother had initiated on June 25, 2009.

2. Peter Schmiedel kept from the court Mother’s bank statements from 2006, 2007, 2008 2009, and 2010 because he knows that Mother had substantial funds in three accounts (Schmiedel’s client only gave numbers to two of the accounts),

3. Peter Scshmiedel knows that Mary G. Sykes / Gloria Jean Sykes (me) had a bag of gold and silver coins in the safety deposity box owned by Mother and me, and that his client is now in possession of those coins;

4. Peter Schmiedel knows that there is no CD or IRA account that Mother opened in January 2009 for $4000, leaving his client the sole beneficiary;

5. Peter Schmiedel knows that there is no “joint’ account between Mother and his client wheeby Mother gave his client about $25,000 in 2005 (or 06);

6. Peter Schmiedel knows that his client Carolyn Toerpe is not the Trustee of the Mary G. Sykes Trust and that it’s a “naked trust” and that Mary G. Sykes, if she were to diagnosed incompetent and there was a trustee, then only Mary’s primary doctor, P. Patel can authorize such diagnosis. (Peter Schmiedel has seen the letter Dr. Patel wrote to his client stating that he refused to sign the CCP211 because Mary is competent and Mary told him not to!)

7. Attorney Schmiedel knows that his client is not a PhD and yet he did not notify the court that the legal document his client filed signing PhD after her name is fraudulent (the CCP211);

8. Attorney Schmiedel knows that his client has over medicated, and medically neglected Mary G. Sykes and that he has in fact told his client to isolate Mary from family and friends;

9. Attorney Sschmiedel has seen the letters Mary has hand-written denouncing Toerpe and asking for an attorney: he has viewed all the digital recordings of Mary proving she is not only highly competent, but also that Mary stated her wishes clarly and that Schmiedel’s client cannot sell Mary’s home, cannot evict me from Mary’s home and cannot force the sale on my home;

10. Peter Schmiedel knows that none of the settlement money from the Lumbermen’s case belongs to Mother and that Mother was as she still is, highly competent then and now;

11. And, Peter Schmiedel knows that his client is the named respondent on a petition for an order of protection and therefore, his client cannot be the guardian of Mary G. Sykes, my Mother; that it was Mother who filed the verified Petition for an order of protection to stop Peter Schmiedel’s client from doing exactly what she is trying to do, and that is financially and emotionally steralize Mary G. Sykes through retaliating against me!

This rule provides, “In appearing in a professional capacity before a tribunal, a lawyer shall not ***(2) fail to disclose to a tribunal a material fact knows to the lawyer when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client.” 134 Ill.2d R. 3.3(a)(2). Furthermore, Peter Schmiedel has told not only the Probate Court, but the Forcible and the Bankruptcy courts that he also represents Mary G. Sykes, which leads me to…

(2) Peter Schmiedel has a serious CONFLICT OF INTEREST. His client Carolyn Toerpe, the named respondent to the petition for an order of protection, has also secured herself as the sole beneficiary of the Mary G. Sykes estate, of which Peter Schmiedel made an agreement for payment from the (1) assets belonging to me from the Lumbermen’s case (see Lumbermen’s v. Gloria Sykes), the sale of Mother’s home, and the forced partition and sale of my home, where I placed Mother as a joint tenant for survivorship only and mother, in her trust stipulates that her “ONLY INTEREST’ is if she precedes me in life. Peter Schmiedel knows that it’s an “expectancy of an inheritance” and not an asset to Mother’s Trust and yet Peter Schmiedl has hired a court friendly psychologist, Gefforey Shaw, who having never met, treated, or even spoke with Mother’s physician in 2008 or current, took the stand many months ago and stated that Mary G. Sykes was ‘incompentent’ on October 18, 2008 and therefore didn’t know what she was signing ****” Peter Schmiedel also made a pack with one of his GAL buddies to be the Commissioner who determins the sale of my property.

As confusing as this sounds, attorney Peter Schmiedel is a ‘pathological liar’ and has repeatedly misrepresented facts to five judges, including State and Federal Justices; he has deliberately provided false information to Judge Connors, Judge Stuart, Judge Flemming, Judge Garaber, Judge Hollis, Judge Gilbert and to a string of Justices sitting on the Appellate Court, where Judge Connors was spontaneously promoted in Oct., Dov 2010. That said attorney Peter Schmiedel opens his mouth and ‘lies’ spew in the form of and including misinformation, and false information to the ARDC and it’s Commissioners! “Pseudologia fantastica’, or ‘story telling’ in order to prejudice the Court and discredit — a sort of a matrix of fantasy interwoven with some facts is narrated in over 11 volumes of verified court transcripts and most of which the ARDC has in it’s files if, in fact, it kept the numerous and large files of complaints I have submitted. It is my humble opinion that a psychiatrist expert able to read the transcripts and watch and listen to Peter Schmiedel in action in front of a Court, any Court, would probably conclude, attorney Peter Schmiedel is a pathological liar.

Peter Schmiedel should be reminded that “[a] lawyer’s high vocation is to correctly inform the court upon the law and the facts of the case and to aid it in doing justice and arriving at correct conclusions.” In re Braner, 115 Ill.2d 384 392 105 Ill. Dec. 233, 504 N.E.2d 102 (19987) quoting People ex rel. Attorney General v. Beattie, 137 Ill. 553, 574, 27 N.E. 1096(1891). Peter Schmiedel should be disbarred and sanctioned.

(3) Peter Schmiedel violated Rule 4.1(a) by providing false information to 3^rd parties, including the Probate Court, Forcible Court, U.S. Bankruptcy Trustee, a Federal Judge, Naperville Police, Catholic Charities, (the list is endless). Therefore, Peter Schmiedel has provided FALSE STATEMENT(S) OF MATERIAL FACT(S) TO A THRID PERSON in order benefit himself and his client. To do so, he has also demonized me, all in retaliation for me standing up to protect my Mother (almost 93 years old) and because I have filed complaints against him and asked for his disbarment. He does this all by hiding behind the color of office and law…. Rule 4.1(1) provides: “In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not (a) make a statement of material fact or law to a third person which statement the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is false.” 134 Ill.2dR. 4.1(a).

(4) Suffice to say, Peter SChmiedel’s CONDUCT INVOLVES DISHONESTY, FRAUD, DECEIT AND MISREPRESENATION, and therefore he is also in vilation of Rue 8.4(s)(4) and Supreme Court Rule 771. Rule 8.4(a)(4) provides that a lawyer shal not “engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation”. 188 Ill.2dR. 8.4(a)(4). Supremee Court Rule 771 provides that conduct “which tend to defeat the administration of justice or to bring the courts or the legal profession into disrepute shall be grounds for discipline by the court.” 134 Ill.2d R. 771. Peter Schmiedel violated both of these rules when he (recently) relayed false information to the Federal Court (Judge Pamela Hollis and the U.S. Trustee) regarding the “Probate Exception” and that my assets, mother’s home, and my home were being probated, therefore the Bankruptcy Court should modify the automatic stays. (Peter Schmiedel, as transcribed in the attach Transcript, also intentionally prejudiced the court and told Judge Hollils that I “hid money”, “was arrested”, “arrested” et al. Peter Schmiedel, in order to fraud the court, had me served with a “Pizza Flyer” and then had attorney Cynthia Farenga’s husband write a verified letter to the court stating that I was served according to procedures…..”) Peter Schmiedel LIED TO THE COURTS so many times, that this transcript shows that since the ARDC has not disbarred and sanctioned him, but empowered him.

Peter Schmiedel’s conduct involves dishonesty, deceit, and misrepresentation which has brought the legal profession into disrepute!.

(5) SANCTIONS: Peter Schmiedel has defrauded not only an elderly woman and knows that her money has been converted (or he is attempting to convert her funds and property), (see In re Holst, 201 Ill.2d 628 (2002); In re Wiard, 198 Ill.2d 662 (2002); In re Garside, 195 Ill.2d 607 (2001); In re Bartley, M.R. 15176 (1998); In re Singer, M.R. 14064 (1997); In re Rotman, 136 Ill.2d 401, 144 Ill.Dec. 776, 556 N.E.2d 243 (1990).)

By not disbarring Peter Schmiedel and sanctioning him, too, you are allowing him to continue his dishonesty and deceitful conduct, and continue to pilfer not only my mother’s property and funds, but my property and funds, too and gives his client, Carolyn Toerpe further opportunity to victimize, financially exploit, and emotionally and medically neglect mother, while Peter Schmiedel and his client continue to retaliate against me.

This retaliation and obstruction of justice also includes the theft of my mail, U.S. Mail he actually brought to the Bankruptcy Court and the Probate Court, that had my name and address on it: Peter Schmiedel refused to return my mail and in fact, the US Postal Inspector is still involved in an investigation. The one envelop he had was addressed to me: the court read into record also evidence that it had no authorized or any markings ‘return to’ Peter Schmiedel. Peter Schmiedel told me to my face and with witnesses, that I am a “waste of” his time. He’s accused me of theft, abusing my mother, and of lying: however, Peter Schmiedel has no evidence of this but obviously clout with certain Courts. That said, Peter Schmiedel admitted to the Probate Court that he “had a good day” when I was illegally and fasley imprisoned, chained to a chair with handcuffs, my freedoms threatened as well as the life of my companion healing pooch: Peter Schmiedel then got the court to cross over state lines and freeze assets of a third party’s bank account.

The ARDC will have a good day too, should the agents do the right thing and investigate Peter Schmiedel, who also orchestrated and succeeded in persuading the sickly Judge Garber to enter an order of possession for his client and denying Mary G. Sykes the right to be in court: this action has caused me serious emotional, physical and financial hardships. Peter Schmiedel lied to me when he told me that his client was agreeable to giving me ‘ample’ time to remove my property, when in fact, he also told his client to loot, seize evidence and do whatever she can to harass, intimidate and silence me. Under attorney Peter Schmiedel’s authority, his client is in serious violations of the bankruptcy stays as they have taken unauthorized control and converted all of my person and professional property to the ownership of Carolyn Toerpe. Peter Schmiedel is also obstructing justice as he has authorized his client to remove, destroy or discard all of my litigation evidence for the Probate Court, Forcible and Detainer, U.S. District Court (ADA complaint where Peter Schmiedel’s client is a defendant); U.S. District Bankruptcy Court adversary proceedings where he, Peter Schmiedel and also his client are Defendants; as well as in the U.S. District Court of Appeals where I will prevail on the merits that Peter Schmiedel has no standing and is not a creditor and therefore, cannot bring a motion to modify any bankruptcy stay.

Additionally, the respondent had also entered into a business transaction with a client without full disclosure[1], made a statement of material fact or law that he should have known was false, and engaged in conduct that tends to defeat the administration of justice or brings the courts or legal profession into disrepute. Twohey, 191 Ill.2d at 84, 245 Ill.Dec. 294, 727 N.E.2d 1028.

Therefore a minimum of two year suspension is justifiable as well as Peter Schmiedel reimbursing the Client Protection Program Trust Fund for any client protection payments arising from his conduct prior to the termination of the period of suspension.[2]

[1] Peter Schmiedel entered into a business transactions with Carolyn Toerpe, the named respondent for a petition for a protective order, that he would only get paid if (1) he helped get rid of me, Gloria Jean Sykes; and to do that (2) have me evicted and take possession of Mother’s home located at 6014 N. Avondale, (3) sell Mother’s home; (4) take control of my assets and leave me penniless, (5) force a partition of and then sale of my home located at 6016 N. Avondale (6) render me homeless, and (7) not provide any of Mother’s financial statements to the Courts. Another words, Peter Schmiedel(s) only source of payment was through the wrongful and fraudulent acts of ***********.

[2] Peter Schmiedel has received numerous complaints to the ARDC verified by me of which court transcripts were made available to the ARDC and the JIB. He has at all times never been able to defend his actions, but in his replys, he continues to LIE, and misrepresent the facts to the ARDC. Peter Schmiedel’s actions have shortened my mother’s life: his arrogant, blantant and ever consistent actions and narrative to various Judges, including the Civil and Federal Courts will in fact, “murder” Mary G. Sykes and also cause me irreparable and egregious harm.

Gloria Jean Sykes
Bon Ami Productions, Inc. 773.910-3310(cell)
773.631-9262 (fax and office line)

Sign my petitions at:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/to-return-mary-g-sykes-home-and-to-remove-carolyn-toerpe-as-plenary-guardian/

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/359/248/993/petition-to-protest-the-publication-and-filing-of-a-complaint-against-atty-kenneth-karl-ditkowsky/
READ her complete story at http://www.MaryGSykes.com
Thank you for any bit of help you can give her!

Petitions

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/to-return-mary-g-sykes-home-and-to-remove-carolyn-toerpe-as-plenary-guardian/

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/359/248/993/petition-to-protest-the-publication-and-filing-of-a-complaint-against-atty-kenneth-karl-ditkowsky/

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/230/881/491/is-mary-g-sykes-incompetent-watch-the-videos-and-vote/

Videos:

5 at Vimeo.com. I had to post them because someone kept on taking them down on youtube.com!

http://vimeo.com/user10893323/videos

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.
PS – This blog is primarily for entertainment purposes only and please don’t file any pleadings or documents in court without checking with the sources for errors. And I promise not to charge CF or AS more than my published hourly rate of $300 per hour. We take credit cards and paypal on our website. Another teeheehee. Sorry, but portions of this blog have to be entertaining so we can get the word out. There is most certainly a great deal of (stinging) truth in it, esp. for the GAL’s, the probate court and a society that ignores (thereby condoning) the sleazy world of probate, and in particular the 18th floor of the Daley Center in Chicago, but everyone needs to understand, these are not pleadings, there is no Motion, Response and Reply set by any court, together with extended legal argument recorded by a court reporter and subject to a Motion to Reconsider if errors or new evidence is found. So don’t take it that way. Like a good reporter, do your own due diligence and check with the sources first. Honestly, I have to explain blogs to attorneys? Have they no life? Do they not know how to email me or use the “comments” section at all?

Summary of the Case!–90%+ of the wrongful conduct all in one convenient place

Posted on March 31, 2012 by Joanne M Denison

For the link:

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwVnRIblN6X1JUTWVsY2hJT2IwVVhGUQ

This is a summary I had prepared before of all the wrongful actions in the Sykes Probate case; however, KD does a great job in his 26 page letter to the Dept of Justice, so you should definitely look at that too! The affidavits at the end prepared by Gloria and her long time family friend Scott explain a lot more too about what is going on in the case.

I will keep on making revisions and post the table periodically.

If you are an attorney you will be absolutely shocked by all this behavior.

If you are a law student or a newly minted atty, this is a good listing of what NEVER to do.

Also, Gloria noted that some of the dates may be off, but I think it is more important to publish this table with a few date errors than to hold it up waiting for every little thing to be absolutely correct. This is a BLOG, not a pleading.

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, has garnered 1700+ views in 4 months, 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.
PS – This blog is primarily for entertainment purposes only and please don’t file any pleadings or documents in court without checking with the sources for errors. And I promise not to charge CF or AS more than my published hourly rate of $300 per hour. We take credit cards and paypal on our website. Another teeheehee. Sorry, but portions of this blog have to be entertaining so we can get the word out. There is most certainly a great deal of (stinging) truth in it, esp. for the GAL’s, the probate court and a society that ignores (thereby condoning) the sleazy world of probate, and in particular the 18th floor of the Daley Center in Chicago, but everyone needs to understand, these are not pleadings, there is no Motion, Response and Reply set by any court, together with extended legal argument recorded by a court reporter and subject to a Motion to Reconsider if errors or new evidence is found. So don’t take it that way. Like a good reporter, do your own due diligence and check with the sources first. Honestly, I have to explain blogs to attorneys? Have they no life? Do they not know how to email me or use the “comments” section at all?

Updated answer to ARDC complaint filed against KD

Posted on March 31, 2012 by Joanne M Denison

Saturday, March 31, 2012

My response has been updated and you can easily view it here:

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwTzRpZkJVSlpSQS1LemFwbm9zNFVJdw

Gloria’s open letter to the ARDC regarding Peter Schmeidel, an Illinois attorney

Posted on March 31, 2012 by Joanne M Denison

To Whom It May Concern at the ARDC,

Today is a red-letter day for me, a day where it is clear in my head, that the ARDC has empowered and therefore sanctions violations of the Professional Codes of Conducts (for attorneys) but also, empowers attorneys of its liking to perpetrate crimes against innocents for financial gain. Case and point. In February/March 2010 I wrote my first complaint against attorney Peter Schmiedel and provided the ARDC with a transcript, in full, that in any true court of law, would be enough evidence to prosecute: however, in this case, I heard nothing from the ARDC. I filed numerous other complaint against attorney Peter Schmiedel, and again, provided the ARDC with verified court transcripts: I received a letter from the ARDC with a copy of a response letter written by Peter Schmiedel’s attorney (I believe the same man who is representing him in the Adversary proceedings in my Chapter 11) and he used words like “baseless”, “malicious”, et al. The ARDC apparently did not investigate and instead, because Peter Schmiedel’s counsel said the allegations against him based on verified court documents (actual quotes spewing out of SChmiedel’s mouth of fraud on the court, et al) are “baseless”, “unfounded” and “malicious”, the ARDC dripped the complaint and empowered Peter Schmiedel to continue his agenda: to robe me blind, render me penniless and homeless, in order to financially benefit (the only way he would get paid) and to accomplish this, Peter Schmiedel used a 93-year-old woman as his pawn. So filing this complaint and citing all of the violations would, to most, appear useless and a waste of my time. However, attorney Peter Schmiedel may have his ‘buddies’ at the ARDC protecting him as he continues to rind in to courtroom after courtroom on his Trogan Horse, filled with misrepresentations of the facts, malicious lies and fraud on the court (again for his own financial gain) but sooner or later, all of us innocents who seek protections from the ARDC, one ARDC agent will stand up to the political elite and corruption and say, “No, you can’t do that”. No, attorney Peter Schmiedel you cannot orchestrate the sale of my mother’s property and the looting of her estate with your trickery and in doing so, lie to the sickly Judge Garber knowing that your client is not the trustee of the Mary G. Sykes trust — and evict me from my HOmestead and then reinforce your threats against me (that you will do whatever you need to do to steal all my assets and property–the ARDC has that email, too) and now help your client Carolyn Toerpe steal all of my personal property and work product (for your personal and financial gain) and silence me.

Yep, attorney Peter Schmiedel told Judge Garber that his client had a right to my Mother’s home because my Mother wanted a 50/50 split, “My client,” Schmiedel said about Carolyn Toerpe, “gets the White house and Gloria get’s the Brown house”. However, mother is still alive, and Mother authored a verified petitoin for an order of protection naming Carolyn Toerpe and her wishes are that Toepre cannot have possession of the so called White House and she cannot enter the White House. Suffice to say, not only has Peter Schmiedel lied to the Court and recently got possession of the White House, he has instructed his client to prevent me from removing any of my personal and professional property and seized all of my work product, as well as all confidential legal documents needed to litigate in the Federal Courts. Furthermore, Peter Schmiedel hired Dr. Geoff Shaw to testify that my mother was “incompetent” on a specific date in October 2008 in order for Peter Schmiedel to steal over $200,000 of my money. Finally, and remember, other than the recent complaint about Peter Schmiedel prohibiting me from safely packing and removing all of my property, property that is part of my bankruptcy estate, he has also influence the court to take control of my home (that was under construction) and sell that home, using one of his friends as a Commissioner, and without proper notice or summons, sell the property and take all of the remaining money again, for his or his buddies, Cynthia Farenga and Adam Stern’s personal gain.

Attorney Peter Schmiedel being the band leader obviously feels protected and that the ARDC, having read the court transcripts that testify to all of the violations of the professional code of ethics, et al, apparently sanction all of this malicious, retaliatory behavior of attorney Peter Schmiedel. To not only lay people but all other attorneys I’ve talked to, they say the same thing: attorney Peter Schmiedel has obstructed justice and continues to obstruct justice for his own personal financial gain. Why am I filing this complaint, just because I pray that one person at the ARDC will do the right thing and have Peter Schmiedel investigated for fraud, financial exploitation, thievery (unauthorized control of property), influencing a judge with ex parte communications (seen him often walk out from Judge Stuart’s chambers right before the Sykes case is called and then rulings always in his favor); attorney Peter Schmiedel is so empowered by the ARDC that he has spit on Lady Justice as if she is trash, and then laughed loud… because he can.

I have met evil in my lifetime. I was the first journalist to interview serial killerJohn Wayne Gacy and the first to ask the question of the Board of Education: “Why, after numerous complaints against Mr. Gacy, did you allow him to continue the work-study program in his home”? “Why did 21 teenage boys have to be drugged, sodomized, murdered and cut up before the political elite request an investigation of Gacy”? The answer did not come easy for the spokesperson. “*** because the complaints we received, and the stories we heard, were unbelievable”. Yes, mother’s calling the board of education and reporting that John Wayne Gacy was ‘queer’ or had “tried to” get push marijuana on ***, or “the last place” Gregory Godzik was known to be was John Wayne Gacy’s home —- Killer Gacy used the same words, “It’s a malicious attack on my good name” he told the media. “The complaints are unfounded” he told the police. The police, the board of Education, and his neighbors believed him.

I was there as the bodies were exhumed from the killer Clown’s home. I was there at the STates ATtorney’s office and did the first interview with killer Gacy. . I looked into John Wayne Gacy’s black holes for eyes and soon after, reported, “John Wayne Gacy is to clever to be insane….” It was y first big story and remembering every money as I do, I know that had the law enforcement or the Chicago Board of Education followed up on one complaint, many teenage boys would be alive today, including Gregory Godzik. Similar, if one person at the ARDC just did their job, the life of my mother would e saved and in saving my mother and sanctioning and disbarring attorneys like Peter Schmiedel, the lives of hundreds of elders and disabled people will be saved. Yes Greg, who I was assigned to interview his parents, lived three blocks from me on Avondale: I couldn’t save his life in reporting the story, but I’ll be damned if I won’t do what needs to be done to save my Mother’s (and my) life. Attorney Peter Schmiedel has orally threatened my life.

Attorney Peter Schemidel is very clever. I’m certain, like the serial killer Gacy, Peter Schmiedel will simply reply to this complaint using words like “baseless”, “unfounded” and “malicious” and the ARDC will simply ignore or cover up. So my question to the ARDC is how many lives will be destroyed before attorney Peter Schmiedel will be brought to justice, sanctioned and disbarred?

So here is yet another complaint against attorney Peter Schmiedel who I equate as a John Wayne Gacy serial killer with a Hitler mentality: a man in need of power, control and the thirst for money and will do anything — even against the law — until he prevails. I guess I should be happy if you do anything, please TELL him to make my Homestead accessible so I can safely pack and in remove my property and stop obstructing justice.

But instead, the ARDC is going after good, decent people who also happen to be attorneys such as Kenneth Ditkowsky, a man my mother, Mary G. Sykes trusts and respects. I rest my case,

Submitted,

Gloria Jean Sykes

I swear to the above information being true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and will testify to the same given the opportunity. This is being faxed electronically. I give permission to re-publich on the internet or any media outlet.

Gloria Jean Sykes
Bon Ami Productions, Inc. 773.910-3310(cell)
773.631-9262 (fax and office line)

From Ken Ditkowsky–a letter to the Department of Justice

Posted on March 31, 2012 by Joanne M Denison

Hot off the presses, KD has just sent me his latest request to authorities for an investigation of the Sykes case.

But it’s 26 pages of PDF so it won’t fit here.

see the link Ken Ditkowsky’s open letter to the Department of Justice

This is a Google Documents public file, so it’s easy to view, read and download.

The attachments are (in case you have not yet seen these):

1. Memorandum of Ex parte communication by Cynthia Farenga to Judge Hollis, ND Ill. BK

2. KD Letter to ARDC dated 3/29/12

3. Exhibit 1: Farenga’s actual letter to Judge Hollis (accuses KD of ghostwriting pleadings for Gloria when in fact Tim Lahrman, a layperson and friend wrote the document. further accuses KD of improperly filing Gloria’s BK pleadings for her when the rules allow for it)

4. Gloria’s email expressing concerns CF wants to dismiss Gloria’s BK and CF got the BK changed to Chapter 11.

5. Counsel for Carolyn Toerpe “tells” the court which doctor to hire (presumably to sandbag a finding of incompetence). The doctor is clearly not independent.

6. Mary Sykes’ letter to her attorney telling him she wants to make up her own mind and she wants everything split between her daughters 50/50. Carolyn took her mother to this attorney to get Mary’s will changed and to benefit from the will in that she would get Mary’s house 100% upon her death.

7. Carolyn Toerpe signed the Doctor’s report “Carolyn Toerpe, PhD”, when in fact she holds no PhD

8. Dr. Patel’s letter that he would not sign a document saying Mary is incompetent. In fact he says she knows her mind but has some poor recall of past events.

8. Petition for Order of Protection against Carolyn (Petition was never heard and was ignored by the Probate Court–directly contrary to Illinois Law which prohibits the Respondent in a Petition for Protective order to seek Guardianship–of anyone).

9. Copy of trust wherein house is put in trust and Carolyn takes the house entirely upon the death of Mary via the terms of this Trust. Trust is invalid under statute of uses because Trustor and Trustee are the same–Mary G. Sykes. CT has been asserting the Trust is valid, when in fact it is not.

10. Next of Friends Lawsuit filed in ND Ill. Federal court–Complaint

11. Transcript of August 13, 2010 wherein Judge Connors asserts that she can invalidate any judgment anytime she wants. She tells the GAL’s they do not have to follow sec 1401 procedure and file in the other judge’s courtroom to attack the Lumberman’s judgment.

12. Letter from Gloria to Rehab Assist–$1800 for consulting with 2 GAL’s and lying about spoiled food in the refrigerator, when in fact Mary was sick at Carolyn’s, lost 10 lbs or 10% of her body weight and Rehab Assist never reported that.

13. Lumberman’s affidavit from Gloria’s Lumerberman’s attorneys.

14. Scott Evan’s ARDC affidavit attesting to what KD said is in fact true and accurate regarding her case.

15. Gloria’s Affidavit to the ARDC that what KD reported is in fact true and accurate–it lists numerous breaches of ethics, court procedures, safeguards and basically it tells a story of how Mary G “had” to be found incompetent, her house sold, so CF, AS, CT and her attorneys might profit from this evil cabal. Disgusting.

If you are interested in reviewing any of these documents, they are now public.

thanks

JoAnne

Posted by JoAnne Marie Denison at 5:12 PM

A Twofer today–Great Response from Gloria

Posted on March 30, 2012 by Joanne M Denison

From the Desk of Gloria Jean Sykes

March 30, 2012

Honorable Timothy C. Evans
Chief Judge Via Fax 312-603-6787

Judge Mary Ellen Coghlan

Presiding Probate Judge Via fax 312-603-6721
Circuit Court of Cook County
50 W. Washington Street, Suite 2600
Richard J. Daley Center
Chicago, IL 60602
312-603-6000

Dear Chief Judge Evans and Judge Coghlan,

What is clearly apparent is that Officers of the Court, specific to Guardian ad Litem, Cynthia Farenga in this instance, is able to do whatever she wants with no oversight or reprimand: Farenga started her assault on my mother, Mary G. Sykes, and on my good reputation and our Civil and Human Rights on August 26, 2009 and in influencing Judge Connors, Judge Cicerio, Judge Flemming, and now Judge Jane Louise Stuart, she has managed to strip both my mother and me of all of our assets, properties, Homestead and soon, the home I own and was in the process of rebuilding. She told me that she would render me penniless, homeless and silence me from speaking out against Court Sanctioned Elder Abuse in order to protect and save my mother, Mary G. Sykes, and it is as evident as the nose on my face, that Cynthia Farenga, under the color of her office, has been able to accomplish everything she set out to do. Cynthia Farenga is ruthless, and even involves her husband, Michael Crawley who served fradulant papers on my financial adviser and illegally obtain confidential financial documents, not only on me, but third parties. That Farenga, along with GAL Adam Stern and Peter Schmiedel participated in many illegal process services (I was also served with a Pizza Flyer) and then presented letters from the so called ‘process server’ to court stating that the service was proper and successful, knowing that it was not, and then, convinced the Court that there was a ‘judgement’ against me and proper and verified filing of a Citation to Discover Assets – and then I was chained to a metal chair with handcuffs, my freedoms threatened, et al (you know the facts already), and most recently, the Court instructed Adam Stern and Cynthia Farenga to make certain that I have access to and am able to visit with my mother, Mary G. Sykes, and the Court order endered has nothing said about such instructions – and it’s been almost one years since I have been able to speak to or visit with my mother, the Elder Abuse and financial exploitation perpetrated by officers of the court MUST BE STOPPED. That Cynthia Farenga and Adam Stern are not only DEFENDANTS in the U.S. District Court ADA complaint, but also in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court adversary complaints, this retaliation against me MUST STOP too.

That this morning there is to be a status proceeding whereby Carolyn Toerpe will present her financial statement/accounting/inventory of Mary G. Sykes’ assets: I cannot be present, but it never mattered because I’ve always objected and filed evidence of fraud, the Probate judges have repeatedly approved the glaring financial exploitation and fraud! I faxed a letter to the court yesterday stating that I would not be in Court due to a conflicting schedule and that I do not waved my rights to object. Cynthia Farenga was copied and her response is as follows:

Cynthia GAL

To GLORIA Jean SYKES, Lucinda, pschmiedel@fischelkahn.com, sternlaw@ameritech.net

Gloria,

I have written confirmation of asking you twice in the past few days for your mailing address. No reply. Further, you continue to serve us frequently by email. Do what you want, but I plan to oppose your request for more time given your continual manipulation of the system. Now go call a press conference about how mean everyone is to you.

Let me remind this court that I have had the same address since 1998: that it is because of the actions of Cynthia Farenga, Adam Stern and Peter Schmiedel that in fact, I have been rendered penniless and now homeless, and shortly, Judge Jane Louise Stuart will comply with their requests to sell my property of which all acts are criminal – serious violations of the Bankruptcy stays – and done willfully and with intent in retaliation to silence me from speaking out. The only person ‘manipul[ing] the system’ is Cynthia Farenga. Most recently, as a Defendant in the Bankruptcy Adversary proceedings, she wrote an ex parte letter to Judge Hollis in another attempt to influence a Judge and prejudice the court.

To conclude, I have filed motions to have Cynthia Farenga (and Adam Stern) removed from this case as Guardian Ad Litem and each time, my requests and requests of ‘next-friends’ have been ignored and motions dismissed. In light of the persuasive and recent rulings from the CT State Supreme Court in and regarding Daniel Gross Et Al, v. M. Jodi Rell Et Al, SC 18548, Justice Rogers opinioned,

“This case comes before us upon our acceptance of certified questions of law from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit pursuant to General Statutes § 51-199b (d).1 The certified questions are: (1) Under Connecticut law, does absolute quasi-judicial immunity extend to conservators appointed by the Connecticut Probate Court?; (2) Under Connecticut law, does absolute quasi-judicial immunity extend to attorneys appointed to represent respondents in conservatorship proceedings or to attorneys appointed to represent conservatees?; and (3) What is the role of conservators, court-appointed attorneys for conservatees, and nursing homes in the Connecticut probate court system, in light of the six factors for determining quasi-judicial immunity outlined in Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 U.S. 193, 201–202, 106 S. Ct. 496, 88 L. Ed. 2d 507 (1985). We conclude that: (1) absolute quasi-judicial immunity extends to a conservator appointed by the Probate Court only when the conservator is executing an order of the Probate Court or the conservator’s actions are ratified by the Probate Court; (2) absolute quasi-judicial immunity does not extend to attorneys appointed to represent respondents in conservatorship proceedings or conservatees; and (3) our analysis of the first and second certified questions is responsive to the third certified question as it relates to the roles of conservators and court-appointed attorneys; with respect to nursing homes caring for conservatees, we conclude that their function does not entitle them to quasi-judicial immunity under any circum- stances.”

The job of a Guardian Ad Litem/lawyer appointed by the probate court is to report, not destroy lives for their own financial benefit. In the above, long-running civil rights case Daniel Gross, the Justices ruled that court-appointed lawyers do not have immunity from lawsuits if they abuse their clients. I have many emails from Cynthia Farenga stating that Mary G. Sykes is her ‘client’. The Judtices also ruled, in a divided opinion, that conservators/guardians have limited immunity. The ruling is far-reaching with implications for our troubled probate court system: attorneys such as Cynthia Farenga—and to a lessor extent, Carolyn Toerpe who is a named abuser/respondent to a petition for a protective order and also appointed plenary Guardian over Mary G. Sykes and over Mary G. Sykes’ objections—cannot ignore the wishes of a client/ward.

For case number 2009 P 4585, In Re. the Estate of Mary G. Sykes, where the requirements of Sodini have NEVER been met, this has huge implications because Cynthia Farenga openly IGNORES THE WISHES OF MARY. G. SYKES. My mother may be 93 years old, but she had the same rights as the rest of us…. Cynthia Farenga has perpetrated many crimes against not only my mother, but also all people my mother loves and trusts. Aunt Yo, who is almost 83, perhaps is suffering as much as my mother (Mary G. Sykes is drugged, isolated, medically and socially neglected, and financially exploited with the knowledge of and the help from GAL Cynthia Farenga.)

And so do I have rights. Therefore, Judge Evans I ask you one more time to have the Sykes case investigated by the States Attorneys Office: to stop GAL’s Cynthia Farenga and Adam Stern from this on-going retaliation and open violations of both my mother’s and my Civil Rights, Bill of Rights, Illinois and United States Constitutions.

Today’s proceedings needs to be continued and I demand proper notice, service, et al before this court has any jurisdiction. That said, why are there two guardian ad litems at all, or still on this case?

My mother is being robbed of the humanity at the end of her life. Mary G. Sykes is being used as a pawn: Cynthia Farenga, Adam Stern, Carolyn Toerpe, Peter Schmiedel, et al, have simply ignored her and in order to silence her, Mary G. Sykes is isolated in the home of a named abuser/respondent to a petition for a protective order where my mother asked the Domestic Violence Court to protect her from Carolyn Toepre. Farenga, Stern, and Toerpe were able to thwart the hearing on the order of protection and instead agreed to a guardianship – even though Mary G. Sykes objected, and objected and objected again. You have copies of the hand-written letters, the links to the digital recordings published on YouTube, and you’ve also received letters from National advocacy groups. In retaliation, I have been targeted. I will not be silenced. As I have said, no devil in hell or person in spirit will stop me from saving my life and protecting my properties in order to save the life of my mother Mary G. Sykes.

This is my mother’s life and hard earned money/property wealth. This is my life and my hard earned money, property and wealth. My mother has civil and human rights. I have human and civil rights. This is also the United States of America not Hitler’s Germany.

I am humbly at loss for words.

You can change all of this. Daniel Gross passed before the CT State Supreme Court opinioned, but his legacy is a powerful one and lasting: if you are old and disabled, probate court can no longer take advantage of you – for the financial gain of lawyers appointed as officers of the court. Cynthia Farenga should be sanctioned and upon your recommendation, removed from the Sykes case and investigated by the ARDC immediately. Your immediate attention is much appreciated.

Healthy Regards,

Gloria Jean Sykes

773-910-3310

Cynthia Farenga writes a letter, and what she doesn’t know, cuz she didn’t check facts first…..it turns out to be hilarious!

Posted on March 30, 2012 by Joanne M Denison

Friday, March 30, 2012

From JD, the blogmeister for Sykes Probate:

This is a letter apparently CF wrote to Judge Hollis who is Gloria’s bankruptcy judge and got Gloria a copy like 10 days later. That was nice. Now for those of you that do not know this, one party is NOT supposed to write to the court without sending a copy to all parties that have appeared in the case. That’s an unfair and unethical exparte communication. CF’s excuse is, she doesn’t know Gloria’s right address. What? CF renders Gloria penniless and homeless, a couch surfer,and now CF can’t properly serve Gloria to send a letter to the judge? Isn’t that CF’s problem? In any case, Gloria is apparently a couch surfer and is homeless, but has internet and efax, but CF can’t be bothered with that. Gloria is pro se so there’s a lot more laxity with court rules for her.

Second funny part is the complaint CF has. In case you didn’t know, in federal court the parties are supposed to disclose to the court if they hired an atty ghostwriter. Now, CF assumes that KD wrote the pleading she is complaining about that is “professionally drafted”. Another teeheetee on her. Turns out it was written by one of Gloria’s friends, the highly talented and behind the scenes friend of Gloria, Mr. Tim Lahrman. I don’t think Mr. Lahrman even has any college, let alone a law degree or bar admission. But I emailed him, and he thanks CF for her honorable accusation of the pleading being drafted by a lawyer and then used in BK court. I haven’t checked to see if that’s true it has been used in BK court, but anyone can write me with the document number if it was in fact actually used. Tim works tirelessly as an untrained and rogue guardian advocate for victims of probate abuse across the country. He is a saint and an angel. Oh, don’t get me wrong, we have had our quarrels, but he should know this.

And as for CF, you might want to check the facts before you write annoying letters. I said the pleading only CAME from KD, he actually got it from Tim, who drafted the thing. You could have ASKED before you drafted up this piece of untrue junk.

And finally, while the ABA has published several articles on pro se parties and their hired attorneys having to inform the court if their pleadings were drafted by a professional, there is no such requirement in Illinois state court, nor is there any requirement that a pro se litigant disclose the writings and musings they find on a blog! A blog is public, anyone can use the contents, (if not a copyright issue), but legal documents and forms cannot be copyrighted. That’s right, the work product of lawyers is specifically excluded from copyright law.

Now for the junky patently untrue letter.

Cynthia R. Farenga/ Attorney at Law/ 1601 Sherman #200/ Evanston, Il 60201/

Ph. 847.475.1300 / fax 847.866.8885 / cfarenga@comcast.net

March 19, 2012

Hon. Pamela Hollis
U. S Bankruptcy Court
219 S. Dearborn #644
Chicago, Il 60604

Re: Kenneth Ditkowsky involvement in Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Case No. 11 B 39831 Gloria Jean Sykes Debtor in Possession

Dear Judge Hollis:

I am one of the Guardians ad Litem for Mary G. Sykes in her guardianship estate captioned “Mary G. Sykes, a disabled person”, which is administered in the Probate Division of the Circuit Court of Cook County. My involvement in this matter is as one of several defendants in Gloria Jean Sykes v. Toerpe et al, Adversary proceeding No. 11-02689.

Several court appearances ago, the Court expressed concern as to whether attorney Kenneth Ditkowsky was representing Ms. Sykes in her bankruptcy. She was initially represented by Jeffrey Esser, who was given leave to withdraw. Thereafter, her pleadings state she is filing pro se, including in the relevant document, “Memorandum of Gloria Sykes,” which has been published o n the marygsykes.blogspot.com website. As I recall, the Court’s concern arose from the use of Mr. Ditkowsky’s federal electronic filing account to file one of Ms. Sykes’ pleadings. The Court directed Mr. Ditkowsky to appear before the Court to describe his involvement, if any, in the bankruptcy case. He stated that he was not involved at all in representing Ms. Sykes in the instant matter. At that time, the Court asked to be notified if contrary information s was discovered about Mr. Ditkowsky’s involvement in Gloria Sykes’ bankruptcy case. The Court admonished him as to the possible loss of his electronic filing privileges if he had misrepresented his involvement in the case.

It has come to my attention that Mr. Ditkowsky may have authored significant portions of Ms. Sykes’ bankruptcy pleading, “Memorandum of Gloria Sykes.” `As I am not authorized to investigate this matter, I have enclosed copies of the blog posts, which I think can reasonably be interpreted to suggest Mr. Ditkowsky’s involvement. I am not sure how to bring the matter to the Court’s attention other than by this letter, (a copy of which has been sent to Gloria Sykes).

To explain the connection between the two relevant blogs on which the Memorandum is discussed/posted: attorney JoAnne Denison established two blogs relating to Mary Sykes’ guardianship, namely, marygsykes.blogspot.com and marygsykes.wordpress.com. Ms. Denison, Mr. Ditkowsky and Gloria Sykes know each other and have been involved in various aspects of Mary’s guardianship estate since almost as soon as it was established. On 11/23/11, Ms. Denison posted a “Memorandum of Judgment” on the blogspot site titled “Info for Bankruptcy Court from Mr. Ken Ditkowsky, J.D., an Ill. Licensed attorney. On the same date on the wordpress site she described the Memorandum as “From Mr. Ken Ditkowsky, an Illinois attorney…His draft to the bankruptcy court. Please click on the above to see what he has written to help Gloria. Excellent job.” Blank spaces on the draft pleading allowed Gloria Sykes to fill in personal information. In terms of authenticating the authorship, a reading of the entire blog reveals that Mr. Ditkowsky himself has posted entries, leading one to conclude that he is aware of Ms. Denison’s prior posting of the draft Memorandum. Moreover, he and Ms. Denison have jointly posted entries on her blog(s).

I hope it has been appropriate to bring this matter to the Court’s attention.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of assistance.

Very truly yours,

Cynthia R. Farenga

Enc: marygsykes.wordpress.com d. 11/23/11 one page
Marygsykes.blogspot.com d. 11/23/1 three pages

Cynthia Farenga

My Repsonse;

Mr. Ditkowsky is 75 years old. He has no idea about how to access or read a post, or subscribe to a blog, etc. He actually told me that as far as he was concerned, “a post is something you hitch a horse to.”

So I will apologize to Tim for stealing his thunder inadvertently.

And I also have to question the other dumb assumption that KD was hired to write pleadings for Gloria from a blog. CF knows that Gloria has no money. She was part of the plan to render Gloria homeless and penniless, via Gloria’s sister, Carolyn and secret away Mary G to a remote location and isolate her. She knows that KD and I am helping Gloria without payment. Where did she get the idea that KD was a hired ghostwriter for her pleadings in BK? Did she ask? Did she first make a reasonable inquiry?

No.

So, like Roseanne Roseannadanna, I guess her final response to all of this is “nevermind.”

The real question is, if and when she will tell Judge Hollis it turns out that Tim Lahrman, someone who is not an attorney, and I know has not gone to law school, has drafted the pleading in question. We know she reads this blog regularly from the letter itself. And I supposed Gloria could send it to her, but we all have better things to do, I think.

I’ll think about it and let ya all know.

JoAnne Denison

And for this post only, if you don’t like something on this blog and feel an urge to write a letter to a court, you might want to have me check it out first for errors and misunderstandings. This is a blog. It reflects the musings, thoughts, IMHO’s and all sorts of streams of consciousness of the individuals contributing to it. We have the right to do this under the US and Illinois Consitutions and there is latitude in publications of newsworthy importance. We are now up to 1800 views on this website alone (I have not found the stats on the Blogger website, I assume they do not have them). Perhaps I need to say that this blog is primarily for entertainment purposes only and please don’t file any pleadings in court without checking with me for errors. And I promise not to charge CF or AS more than my published hourly rate of $300 per hour. We take credit cards and paypal on our website. Another teeheehee.

PS–with respect to the accusation that KD “let” Gloria file something using his Pacer BK access, respectfully Judge Hollis was mistaken. But then again, KD should have argued the rule. The rule regarding Pacer filings is that the attorney can let others use the account as long as he agrees with the filing and that the filing complies with Rule 11 and that means it isn’t being done to harass, annoy, delay or needlessly multiply the proceedings. There was nothing wrong with what KD did. Gloria needs help and lawyers should ALWAYS help out those that are penniless and want their side of the case heard so that justice might be done. Gloria, I now have BK pacer access and I would be pleased to help you out with any, valid reasonable pleading. I have no problem uploading a memo at the same time, citing the real rule, that you are penniless and need help and that all lawyers have a duty to help out those that are in need and load up stuff on Pacer for them.

Memorandum from Kenneth Ditkowsky, esq.

Posted on March 28, 2012 by Joanne M Denison

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

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

Ken Ditkowsky’s Reply Brief to his Motion to Dismiss the Complaint filed against him

Posted on March 28, 2012 by Joanne M Denison

From Ken Ditkowsky:

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 not 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 reasonable 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 aggrieved 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 )

ReplyTo 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 2^nd 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 1^st and 14^th 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 21^st 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 publishing 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.

Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

In Rememberance of Mary Todd Lincoln

Posted on March 26, 2012 by Joanne M Denison

More than 100 years ago, in Chicago in the late 19th century, Robert Lincoln, the lawyer son of Mary Todd Lincoln, had his mother committed to an insane asylum in Chicago. Mary Lincoln believed it was because he wanted to gain control of her fortune. Nonetheless, the commitment of Mary for one year in an insane asylum and the subsequent trial are a 100 year old struggle between the elderly that want to avoid confinement, and a facility and child that wants to control someone else’s finances:

From Wiki:

After Mrs. Lincoln nearly jumped out of a window to escape a non-existent fire, her son determined that she should be institutionalized.^[26]

Mrs. Lincoln was committed to a psychiatric hospital in Batavia, Illinois, in 1875. After the court proceedings, Mary was so enraged that she attempted suicide. She went to the hotel pharmacist and ordered enough laudanum to kill herself. However, the pharmacist realized what she was planning to do and gave her a placebo.^[26](Note a good lawyer would have questioned why anyone would assume a quantity of laudanum is assumed to be consumed all at once? Use of laudanum throughout the day was common for people suffering with paid–as Vicodin, Oxycontin, etc. are used today. But for the purposes of the trial, she bought it and was going to kill herself with all of it in one dose.)

[Many believe the charges were trumped up, exaggerated, and in some cases, fabricated. Moreover, the fact that she was a spiritualist and held seances regularly throughout her life, did not help her case. This is despite the fact it was she who told the President the war would not end until he freed the slaves and that God/dess abhorred slavery. That prediction came true and within months of freeing the slaves, the war ended.]

On May 20, 1875, she arrived at Bellevue Place, a private sanitarium in the Fox River Valley.^[27] Three months after being committed to Bellevue Place, Mary Lincoln engineered her escape. She smuggled letters to her lawyer, James B. Bradwell, and his wife, Myra Bradwell, who was not only her friend but also a feminist lawyer and fellow spiritualist. She also wrote to the editor of the Chicago Times. Soon, the public embarrassments Robert (who now controlled his mother’s finances) had hoped to avoid were looming, and his character and motives were in question. The director of Bellevue, who at Mary’s trial had assured the jury she would benefit from treatment at his facility, now in the face of potentially damaging publicity declared her well enough to go to Springfield to live with her sister as she desired.^[28] She was released into the custody of her sister, Mrs. Elizabeth Edwards, in Springfield and in 1876 was once again declared competent to manage her own affairs. The committal proceedings led to a profound estrangement between Robert and his mother, and they never fully reconciled.

Mary was confined for only a year and the bad publicity let her go free where she lived out her years far from a son that had her committed.

What about the rest of the Marys?

From the SunTimes today, in honor of Mary Lincoln:

MARY TODD’S DAY IN COURT

BY DAVID ROEDER

Staff Reporter droeder@suntimes.com

Mary Todd Lincoln will get her day in court — two days, in fact — even if it’s 130 years after her death.

The wife of the nation’s 16th president saw her husband killed and buried three of the couple’s four children. Her only surviving son, Robert Todd Lincoln, got her committed to an asylum in Batavia after her behavior became alarmingly erratic, but the decision was overturned a year later.

She died in 1882, broken by grief and suspicious of her son’s motives.

Historians debate whether the 19th century legal system treated her justly in labeling her insane.

To dramatize how changing laws affect the mentally ill, two state agencies are sponsoring mock retrials this fall of Mary’s insanity case.

They will be held Sept. 24 at the Murphy Auditorium, 50 E. Erie, and at the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Museum in Springfield Oct. 1. Monday, actress Pam Brown, portraying Mary, will receive her “summons” to appear those dates. She will be served at 5:30 p.m. at 54 W. Hubbard, site of her original insanity trial. The Lincoln museum and the Illinois Supreme Court Historical Preservation Commission are producing and sponsoring the events. They said funds raised beyond production costs will be used on preservation of historic documents.

Tickets are available for the retrials and other events planned in connection with Mary’s life. Information is available at was marylincolncrazy. com .

The events include a roundtable discussion of mental health issues April 16 at the State Capitol in Springfield and a yet-tobe- scheduled dramatization of the relationship between Mary and her friend and advocate, Myra Bradwell, who helped free her from the asylum. The show will be based on letters they wrote to each other.

Great Stats today–30 posts and 1500 views since December, 2011

Posted on March 25, 2012 by Joanne M Denison

Dear Gloria;

We started this blog with Ken Ditkowsky, esq. in December of 2011, and you have managed more than 30 posts and 1500 views!

Congratulations! Keep up the posts, I get more and more views every day you post.

JoAnne

Petitions

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/to-return-mary-g-sykes-home-and-to-remove-carolyn-toerpe-as-plenary-guardian/

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/359/248/993/petition-to-protest-the-publication-and-filing-of-a-complaint-against-atty-kenneth-karl-ditkowsky/

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/230/881/491/is-mary-g-sykes-incompetent-watch-the-videos-and-vote/

Videos:

5 at Vimeo.com. I had to post them because someone kept on taking them down on youtube.com!

http://vimeo.com/user10893323/videos

From Gloria Sykes–two new orders of protection in DuPage County

Posted on March 25, 2012 by Joanne M Denison

It is kind of amazing when a simple thing like serving a document is so damn difficult. It has been suggested that the ‘fix’ is in. How deep does it go! The profits from systematic elder abuse and financial exploitation must be just out of sight.

What we need is a bill in the legislature to make it open season on the political elite. Maybe AARP can be talked into getting out of the insurance business and put some effort into getting us a couple of elected representatives who talk straight, act straight and are actually interested in grandma!

Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

From: GLORIA Jean SYKES <gloami@msn.com>
To: kenditkowsky@yahoo.com; Lucinda <michiganadvocacyproject@gmail.com>; GLD <gailwinds2hi@yahoo.com>; Elaine NAsga <elaine@abusiveguardianships.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2012 11:14 AM
Subject: RE: DuPage County received Petitions for orders of protections on Carolyn and Fred Toerpe yesterday early morning and yet, nothing was sent out to have served….

as I just got off the telephone with M at the DuPage County Sheriff’s department in and regarding the two petitions for protective orders against Fred and Carolyn Toerpe received via certified mail yesterday morning by the DCSD at 7:35 am. The documents never made it to M’s officer for dispatch and service. In fact there is no record of either summons! I faxed her over the summons on Fred Toerpe but must have left my copy of Carolyn Toerpe’s at *** where I was copying and mailing Certified return service on Wednesday. That said, Deputy M. will have Fred served today and will investigate what happened to and why the two summons were not presented to her division yesterday for service today. I beleive Fred Toerpe’s son, Detective Sheriff Robert Toerpe who works out of DuPage has some clout and maybe is preventing such service. That said, whatever happened, there is no coincidence. I will be speaking with M on Monday afternoon and if need be, return to the court and get a new copy of service on Carolyn Toerpe and then Fax immediately. All in all the Toerpes are very impowered and I cannot find anybody to be with me from noon to 2 pm tomorrow and I will not be in the home alone with Fred and Carolyn Toerpe– although I need my property to sustain and litigate and ****. That said, it’s a war in which I need one battle victory. So far, I’m swimming up stream and Toerpe and company are holding all of the aces… Until there is a resolution or a sense that one word I speak is accurate and of substance no one will do this story. I’ve tried. Writing the book is a different story all together. That, however can’t be completed unless there is an ending… right now even the pbulisher won’t publish with an ending that I am homeless, penniless and mumbling how my sister got so much power and empowerment that *****. Just got off the telephone with .

Gloria Jean Sykes
Bon Ami Productions, Inc.
773.910-3310(cell)
773.631-9262 (fax and office line)

Petitions

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/to-return-mary-g-sykes-home-and-to-remove-carolyn-toerpe-as-plenary-guardian/

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/359/248/993/petition-to-protest-the-publication-and-filing-of-a-complaint-against-atty-kenneth-karl-ditkowsky/

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/230/881/491/is-mary-g-sykes-incompetent-watch-the-videos-and-vote/

Videos:

5 at Vimeo.com. I had to post them because someone kept on taking them down on youtube.com!

http://vimeo.com/user10893323/videos

Congratulations to the family of Daniel Ross–let’s hope that Mary’s Justice comes in time for her to enjoy it.

Posted on March 24, 2012 by Joanne M Denison

From NASGA, a belated story of happiness for one family member that continued on the fight for others in a conservatorship that just want to go home. Justice in this case came too late, tho. If you do not read the entire article, what this state Supreme Court said is that Daniel Ross just wanted to go home and his guardian had to listen to his wishes.

Mary G just wants to go home and have Gloria care for her. The situation is ridiculous where she is sitting in an unhappy home in Naperville where she was ripped from her home and family, friends, garden club she knew since the 1950’s. Her Plenary Guardian, when she is working, sends her to adult day care where she sits idly with low functioning adults.

Please help her and sign our petitions and see the videos (info below). Mary wants to go home. Gloria wants her there and has said she will care for her. Gloria has now been evicted from the home and all her assets frozen. Mary will be put in a nursing home (mark my words on this) and the house sold and put in a trust Carolyn benefits from. Don’t let this happen. It’s the nadir of our justice system. ~~from JoAnne Denison

Hi Ken,
You may not have ever heard of the Daniel Gross case (an interstate conservatorship involving CT and NY and a massive -and costly- tug of war between the two states – at Daniel Gross’ expense and to his detriment), but you will enjoy this article and appreciate the victory and the weight of such a victory. See the below article written by Rick Green, reporter for the Hartford Courant, who has followed the Daniel Gross case for several years. Perhaps you can use it in your advocacy efforts for Mary Sykes.
Dee King (Daniel Gross’ daughter) is a NAGSA member. We’re all celebrating this victory with her today!

http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-green-probate-judge-decision-0324-2-20120323,0,3395932.column
The state Supreme Court stood up Friday for a simple right that matters deeply for all, but especially to the old, sick and disabled.
The job of a lawyer appointed by probate court is to fight for the client, whether he is healthy or a stubborn 86-year-old man.
In a unanimous ruling in the long-running civil rights case of Daniel Gross, the justices ruled that court-appointed lawyers do not have immunity from lawsuits if they abuse their clients. The court also ruled, in a divided opinion, that conservators appointed by probate have limited immunity. The justices also ruled that a nursing home does not have immunity from lawsuits in probate cases.
The ruling has far-reaching implications for our troubled probate court system. It means that a court-appointed lawyer, and to a lesser extent the conservator — who is appointed by probate when a person can no longer live independently — cannot ignore the wishes of a client. The message to probate court is clear: Lawyers and conservators must be held accountable.
For probate courts, this has huge implications because many of the unsettling and outrageous cases I have been writing about for the past six years stem from abuse by conservators and court-appointed lawyers and judges who don’t pay enough attention.
Although Gross died in 2007, his civil rights case lived on. The lasting lesson is that the old or disabled — even if they are unwell and cranky — have the same rights as the rest of us.
“It means that if you get a court-appointed lawyer, that lawyer cannot have any doubt that the lawyer’s job is to listen to you,” said Sally Zanger, the Connecticut Legal Rights Project lawyer who represented Carolyn Dee King, Gross’ daughter. “It’s what the lawyer is supposed to be doing.”
Amazingly, that’s been the problem in the probate cases I’ve been telling you about since 2006. Gross’ was the first and most heartbreaking case I stumbled upon, when a Legal Aid lawyer told me an unbelievable tale of an old man from Long Island being held against his will in a Waterbury nursing home.
Elderly but still independent, Gross became ill while visiting his daughter in Waterbury. He was hospitalized, and while his children fought over his care and who should control his finances, Waterbury Probate Judge Thomas Brunnock approved his involuntary conservatorship.
Gross wanted to go home to Long Island. He wasn’t told of the hearing where he was ordered conserved. His court-appointed lawyer, Jonathan Newman, failed to object to the conservatorship, even though Gross just wanted to leave Connecticut. His conservator, Kathleen Donovan, had him placed in a locked, restricted ward at Grove Manor Nursing Home in Waterbury. His roommate was violent.
Later, when Gross was on a day visit to his Long Island home, he was hospitalized. Donovan brought him back to Connecticut in an ambulance against the wishes of Gross’ New York doctor.
In June 2006, Superior Court Judge Joseph Gormley, at a dramatic writ of habeas corpus hearing, ordered Gross freed, declaring that “a terrible miscarriage of justice” had taken place and that the man had been “deprived of his liberty.”
King, Gross’ daughter, filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against Brunnock, Donovan, Newman and the nursing home. Brunnock, as a judge, could not be sued, but the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals sent the question of immunity for the others back to the state Supreme Court for a ruling. King’s lawsuit against Donovan, Newman and the nursing will now go back to federal court.
Newman’s lawyer — who argued to the Supreme Court that his client’s role was like that of a lawyer for a child — did not respond to my call. A lawyer for Donovan, Richard A. Roberts, said the ruling might mean that conservators and court-appointed lawyers will be forced to go to a judge for every decision they make.
But Fairfield Probate Judge Daniel Caruso, president of the association of probate judges, said that his colleagues will welcome the ruling.
“When the Supreme Court articulates and provides brighter lines as to what is and is not within the bounds of immunity, it helps everyone,” he said.
Public-interest lawyers hailed the decision because it provides new accountability to a court system that critics say still lacks oversight.
“Our legal system has safeguards. Even when you are appointed by the court you are accountable for what you do,” Tom Behrendt of the Connecticut Legal Rights Project told me.
When I reached King, she reminded me of her father’s humiliation before a court that was supposed to protect him.
“He was robbed of his humanity at the end of his life,” King said. “He was used as a pawn. They just ignored him.”
We can’t change that, but the elderly man’s lasting legacy is a powerful one. If you are old or disabled, probate court is a less-frightening place thanks to Daniel Gross.

Petitions

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/to-return-mary-g-sykes-home-and-to-remove-carolyn-toerpe-as-plenary-guardian/

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/359/248/993/petition-to-protest-the-publication-and-filing-of-a-complaint-against-atty-kenneth-karl-ditkowsky/

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/230/881/491/is-mary-g-sykes-incompetent-watch-the-videos-and-vote/

Videos:

5 at Vimeo.com. I had to post them because someone kept on taking them down on youtube.com!

http://vimeo.com/user10893323/videos

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.

BK Pleading, From Ken Ditkowsky, an Illinois attorney

Posted on March 23, 2012 by Joanne M Denison

In Re:                                                                          )
)           CHAPTER 11
GLORIA JEAN SYKES                                                 )
)           CASE No. 11 B 39381
DEBTOR IN POSSESSION                              )
)

MEMORANDUM OF GLORIA SYKES

Prefatory Statement

This Chapter 11 Bankruptcy was filed by me, pro se, on September 28, 2011. The purpose of the filing was to address bulging debts being incurred because the U.S. 1364 Federal Credit Union located in Merrillville , Indiana refused to allow me, the debtor, access to my money. In the course of these proceedings debtor engaged, upon the recommendation of Attorney Kenneth Ditkowsky, Attorney Jeffrey Esser.
This Court granted the vacation of the automatic stay as to the U. S. 1364 Federal Credit Union, and Carolyn Toerpe on _______________________. This Court suggested that the issue of my funds, listed on Schedule _____, was more property under the Circuit Court of Cook County jurisdiction (Probate Division) and it was more appropriate to litigate the issue herein. I respectfully disagree for the reason stated herein.
On _______________________________________ I attempted to file a Motion to Reconsider the Modification of the Automatic Stay. My efforts were thwarted as I was informed   (please fill in the blanks below) “________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________.”
When I encountered difficulty in filing my documents in the clerk’s office I requested the office of Kenneth Ditkowsky to help me to file documents to address the modification of the stay. Mr. Larry Chambers, an employee of the office, after consulting with the clerk’s office, caused my documents to be filed. I have not engaged Mr. Ditkowsky to represent me in this proceeding.
Statement of Facts as to the Scheduled Funds
1.                  That on or about ____________________________, I suffered a loss at my home located at 6016 N. Avondale, Chicago , Illinois . I made a claim under my home owner’s insurance.
2.                  That on or about July 26, 2002 my insurance carrier filed a law suit entitled Lumberman’s Mutual Casualty Company v. Gloria Sykes. This law suit was docketed as case number 2002 CH 13769.
3.                  That after a series of mesne orders including but not limited to the decision of the appellate Court entitled Lumberman’s Mutual casualty Company vs. Gloria Sykes, docketed as number 1-07-0860, the Circuit Court of Cook County granted an award to me on October 17, 2008.   That award generated the funds scheduled hereinand which are the subject matter of the Automatic Stay.
4.                  The Affidavit of the Attorneys who participated in the granting of the award is attached hereto and made a part hereof as exhibit 1. The opinion of the Appellate Court is attached as exhibit 2. The order awarding me the funds that are the subject matter of the schedule is attached hereto as exhibit 3. The printout of the docket of the Lumberman’s case subsequent to the entry of its final order is exhibit 4. These exhibits are incorporated by reference and made part hereof as if set forth in detail.
5.                  That the only avenue to address any defect or error of the award aforesaid dated October 17, 2008 (case 2002 CH 13769) is pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2 1401 or a timely appeal. No 1401 petition was filed and no appeal was filed.[1] Thus the award is final and the funds are clearly mine and mine alone.
6.                  That my review of the record and the Court’s statements indicates that no adjudication has occurred suggesting that anyone other than me has an interest in these funds.
7.                  That it is the established law of the United States that Illinois courts have no jurisdiction beyond their borders and certainly cannot attach assets beyond the state border.
8.                  That it is my understanding that the purpose of a Chapter 11 proceeding is to garner the debtor’s creditors in one jurisdiction and attempt to allow the debtor to marshal her assets and to work out a plan to liquidate her liabilities. Without the funds belonging to me, I cannot do this.
9.                  That the modification of the Automatic Stay as to my funds accredited on Schedule ___ obviates my ability to address my creditors.
10.              An Americans with Disabilities Act claim has been filed in the United States District Court as docket number _______________________________________. The ADA law suit is incorporated by reference and made part hereof as if set forth in detail.
I respectfully urge this Court to reconsider and reinstate the automatic stay as to all creditors or persons having access to the funds scheduled.
Respectfully submitted,

________________________________
Gloria Jean Sykes

Verification

Gloria Jean Sykes pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/1-109 and penalties of perjury states that to the best of her knowledge and belief the facts stated herein are true and correct.

________________________________________
Gloria Jean Sykes

Another (sigh) bogus attorney Disqualification–this time from the ARDC.

Posted on March 20, 2012 by Joanne M Denison

FROM JOANNE DENISON:

This is in response to my informing Mr. Ditkowsky that I was contacted ex parte by Ms. Lea Black at the ARDC regarding an interview for the complaint filed against ME by Cynthia Farenga. I had, in a previous phone conversation informed Ms. Black that Mr. Ditkowsky would be representing me. She said that was not possible because I might be a witness in the case against KD. But this makes no sense whatsoever. Illinois law on disqualification is clear you must 1) have a jury which might be confused when a lawyer/witness testifies or 2) there must be such a gross internal conflict between the attorney and his client such that the attorney might provided testimony that is biased–that is, there must be something like malpractice on the atty’s part, or some similar egregious action where the atty might tell a different story so he won’t be charged with a tort or crime arising out of the atty-client relationship. There is no such conflict arising here. Ms. Black is just plain wrong. KD and I are on the same side and fighting for Mary. I have no potential cause of action against KD.

To tell client they cannot have free choice of counsel is one of the most egregious torts that can occur.

I am completely sickened by the use of “atty disqualification” as a bogus tool to impede justice.

FROM KEN DITKOWSKY

It is outrageous that Ms. Black should have contacted you directly, when she is aware that I am representing you.     She may not approve, but, it is not her position to dictate who can represent you and who cannot.

The question is how we handle the complaint.    The Motion to Dismiss that I am filing today addresses the situation as it is so horrendous and is another reason for the dismissal of the frivolous complaint filed against me.

The series of cover-up and outright intimidation attempts that are so obvious in the Sykes case are indicative of political corruption.    Exactly how deep this thing goes is hard to anticipate but it has to be addressed.   It appears to me that Ms. Black as an attorney for the ARDC was and is well versed in the fact that her conduct was going to produce a fire storm.   The question is why, and whether or not this was a diversion or just arrogance.    The issues in are just too important to be taken off center stage.    As I state in my Motion – the attorneys are minor players – what society has to do is seize onto the miscreants and force them to reveal the ‘roots’ of the criminal enterprise.

For instance, the ‘million dollars’ that has not been inventoried in Sykes – who shared in the ‘loot!’  What political operatives shared?    Why has there been no ARDC investigation of Farenga, Stern and Schmiedel?   Why are they immune?   Why is law enforcement so impotent?

The Sykes case and the other Elder Abuse cases are ‘big time’ criminal enterprises as not only are substantial sums of money involved, but they involve the more heinous crimes — separation of an individual from his/her human rights!   Many of the nursing homes, day care centers are 21st Century National socialist death camps!     Read Scott Evan’s description of the facility that he observed Mary Sykes housed!     I’ve personally observed some of the Morris Esformes facilities – I watched dignity be taken from human beings as they were allowed to lie in their own urine!

Everytime I hear one of the political elite worry about Grandma’s social security check I think of Adam Stern, Cynthia Feranga, and Peter Schmiedel and the incident that Mr. Evans describes in his affidavit!     It is indeed interesting that complaining about the unjust enrichment of ***** is a unethical act for attorneys according to the Illinois Supreme Court’s Attorney Registration and Discipline Commission complaint against me and Ms Black’s indiscretion documented by her unauthorized communication with Ms. Denison.

Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

Legal Disclaimer (added by JMDenison)
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 Constution and violations will be taken serious with charges under the Illinos 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.

Be sure to sign all the petitions we have for Mary and watch the videos

Posted on March 18, 2012 by Joanne M Denison

Today, please take some time to sign all the petitions for Mary. One new Petition is where you watch videos of her bowling, talking about what she wants, and tell us if you think she 1) is incompetent, 2) must sell her home and live at Carolyn’s in Naperville, 3) money from the home goes into a trust fund that Carolyn controls and will benefit from.

Oh, and Gloria’s assets are still frozen past the 1401 deadline to attack her Lumberman’s funds. Those should be immediately released. The GAL’s and Probate court have no reason to hold them any longer.

Petitions

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/to-return-mary-g-sykes-home-and-to-remove-carolyn-toerpe-as-plenary-guardian/

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/359/248/993/petition-to-protest-the-publication-and-filing-of-a-complaint-against-atty-kenneth-karl-ditkowsky/

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/230/881/491/is-mary-g-sykes-incompetent-watch-the-videos-and-vote/

Videos:

5 at Vimeo.com. I had to post them because someone kept on taking them down on youtube.com!

http://vimeo.com/user10893323/videos

Legal Disclaimer (added by JMDenison)
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 Constution and violations will be taken serious with charges under the Illinos 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.

From Ken Ditkowsky: How the nursing home industry bilks the State of Illionis millions per year, billions per decade.

Posted on March 17, 2012 by Joanne M Denison

Harry,

I noted when I read the ARDC complaint filed against me that there was a coincidence that was too obvious to ignore. Count 2 coincided very closely with my compelling A & W to appear for depositions. At these depositions A & W made admissions and disclosed that the nursing home industry has been reimbursed what could be billions of dollars that they were not entitled to. The state is entitled to every dime back.

I also know that the Fed hauled Mr. K*** and Mr. R*** before a grand jury as they were allegedly overcharging for transportation. ReHab Assist (another of these companies) billed Gloria for looking in on her mother’s dog. Looking at their billing to Gloria, if its consistent, they should qualify for a Nobel prize in literature (fiction).

The following is my rough note to myself as to the generics of what I learned. The next step is analysis. I will see that Law enforcement gets a copy for two reasons. If the ARDC complaint was intended to intimidate me, I have to act on my intimidation, and now there is no further reason to intimidate me –

MEMORANDUM

To whom it may concern:

Re: current information concerning nursing home investments.

People involved.

The key person is Morris Esformes. Mr. Esformes, N. Draiman, and others it appears in the 1960’s developed a sure fire money making scheme. They bought, or otherwise acquired nursing homes of a decent size. These facilities were 100 beds or more, usually in 150 to 250 size. With the advent of medical insurance, insurance was now available to cover costs that heretofore had been paid by the family with great hardship. This situation also facilitated the public sector in the form of the State of Illinois to house welfare and other patients in these facilities rather than in State run or private hospital. Esformes and the other nursing home operators (all of whom had some relationship to each other) gleaned onto this opportunity.

As the businesses were subject to regulation and corners were cut on a regular basis, the life expectancy of a particular operation was about ten years. The new owners were all in some manner related to Esformes of the patron saint. For instance, subsequent general partners were spouses, children, ex-spouse’s mates etc. A & W (Newman vs. A & W) both worked for Esformes. W was hired to shepherd Ms. Esformes and ultimately became her second husband. Some similar relationships are documented.

Financing

Real Estate financing was fairly routine. A Bank would provide a first mortgage. The venture was financed by inducing co-religionists (at first) to provide the capital. This was done by a series of limited partnerships. The partners in spite of the terms of the partnership agreement would actually be lenders sans a note. The limited partners would be promised a ‘return on investment.’ Come ‘hell’ or high water the general partners would see that the limiteds would get a yearly sum of money equal to the return. For instance, if there was promised 10% return, the limited would receive 10% Principal would be paid when the real estate was sold.

Sequence of events:

Investor A would be induced to purchase an interest. For $2500 a bed he could become a part of the transaction. If there were 100 beds in the facility he would have a 1% interest. The general partner would induce up to 35 similarly situated person to purchase beds until 100% were sold. The general partners would obtain a certain number of beds for their expertise and the management of the partnership.

When the first deal was set, the Generals would contact Mr. Esformes and Esformes would determine the deal. It was a take it or leave it transaction. All the documents were uniform and word to word similar. The documents were:

· An offering statement. This document had to be returned to the general partners and when inquiry is made for it, no one has a copy.

· Partnership agreement (entitled limited partnership agreement) This is a procrustean document intended to protect the general partners and paragraph 13 written to cure any conflict of interests problems and allow the general partners to adjust the earnings of the partnership so that government and the limited partners were satisfied (in whatever way they had to be satisfied).

· Option agreement

· Master lease.

The partnership would lease (with option to purchase) one of the Esformes nursing homes. Immediately the facility would engage an administrator. The administrator had to be licensed by the State of Illinois and took care of the daily rote items such as hiring and firing. (The general partners appeared periodically to pick up a check). As the administrator is a professional and licensed the nursing home usually met State standards. Periodically state inspectors were greased and a constant flow of cash was maintained.

After about ten years the facility had acquired a substantial number of skeletons and it was time to move on. The generals having taken unearned management fees and a share of the distributions were now well heeled and it was time to move on. Thus, a second group of investors was brought in to lease the premises. This second group agreed to pay rents to the limited partners. The partnership continued in operation as a real estate investor, but exercised no control over the nursing home. The delay was used to obviate the rotten taste of the generals taking very substantial sums for not managing the business. The new lease was a net, net, net lease and therefore, from this point on the partnership waited for the statute of limitations to expire as to any miscreant conduct that had occurred. In the meantime the rental provided funds to pay the juice to the limiteds. (This operation was similar to a Madoff scheme except so far the bubble has not burst)

When the transaction had been cleansed sufficiently that the generals felt safe, they exercised their option and took title to real estate. Sometimes the exercise of the option was simultaneous with the new lease being signed. (Key money and down stroke were paid at this point in time – these were based upon the number of beds) When the sale occurred with or without winding up the partnership the transaction ended. (NB As I mentioned previously it appears to me that instead of cash or checks ‘beds’ were the currency in which these individuals dealt – One of my clients suggested to me that there was also another currency, but he would not or could not disclose to me what the currency) While the USA does tax barter, I do not believe that the alternative currency is taxed . For instance, it is my understanding that certain professional fees are paid in beds! This group works in Illinois, Florida, California and Arizona.

I have an idea that second currency is opportunity. Some of the occupants of the nursing home have money but may not have close family – or have family such as exists in Sykes. Thus, relatives of the nursing home turn up as the beneficiaries of estate planning documents, or we have Sykes, or we have the Florida inheritance sham that the ‘Rabbi’s wife’ alerted me.

Operation of the partnership venture.

The nursing home operation was cut and dry. The administrator was a professional and licensed. In addition services of a Rothner owned company appear to have been engaged to deal with the various problems that arose. These services were built into the budget of the venture and assured that someone who knew what he was doing was actually at the controls. The same people were induced to be limited partners over and over again and they were a source of easy financing and ‘great cover.’

It also appears that as the transactions evolved government regulations and activities (such as removing mentally ill ) ran into conflict with the primary goal of these facilities – making money. Thus, to adjust costs every service that could be separated out was! Nursing services were provided by a separate provider, as where pharmacy, transportation, cleaning, utilities, social service (ReHab Inst.) etc. All these separate companies follow the Les On Drug format. A youngster just out of school was engaged to be the CEO at a very attractive salary. He was the front! The real managers were the nursing home operators who stayed very far in the background.

The costs were thusly adjustable. For instance, if a particular facility were to generate too heavy a profit, adding some utility costs was undetectable. No one could back check to determine if John Doe was transported to the hospital be private car of ambulance! Four of five nurses could be assigned to a particular facility if an inspection was due, and removed the next day. The one draw back was that as long as operations continued, a partnership had to maintain records as their were limited partners out there who would get upset that ‘gas bills’ were about double the usage as Multiut or some similar company was billing (and getting paid) for natural gas not delivered. (The limited partners actually believed that they were partners).

The State aided an abetted a fraud on itself, as large campaign donations were regularly reported and it was not usual for the entire nursing home population to all vote by absentee ballot for a particular candidate for public office. The state reimbursed the facility for various costs. The A & W case highlights management costs:

A & W elected to appoint a manager (administrator), thus, making paragraph 13 of the limited partnership agreement inapplicable. Like all of the other general partners during the period of operation of the nursing home operation they continued to ‘double dip’ and receive a remuneration called a management fee for not managing anything. This management fee was charged to the State and reimbursement from the State was requested and paid. It is basic under partnership law that 1) the general partner cannot obtain any remuneration for managing the partnership – it received It fee upfront with an enhanced ownership interest. And 2) as a fiduciary the general was not entitled to a remuneration for services not performed. Thus, knowing that their management fee was illegal the request to the State of Illinois for reimbursement was similarly illegal. The state is entitled to reimbursement for 100% of the management fee reimbursement charged to it.

A & W went one step further – they charged a management fee for the period in which they leased the property to the next successor in interest. It is unknown if these fees were reimbursed by the State of Illinois.

Problems

1) To end a partnership the partnership must be wound up. This means an accounting to the limited partners, distribution of all assets, and payment of all creditors

2) The general partners committed a series of frauds. The most serious is over-charging the State of Illinois

__________________________________________________________________

Last night when I figured out the amount of money that is involved in this entire process it occurred to me that if I did not lay this all out to law enforcement so that they would not have to reinvent the wheel, I might have to get a big dog and an even bigger gun. Now with this memo I am once again ‘small potatoes’ and more trouble than I am worth. It is even too late for the ARDC to silence me.

Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

Atty Joanne Denison’s Response to the Complaint filed against Atty Ditkowsky on the IARDC website

Posted on March 16, 2012 by Joanne M Denison

In the Matter of:

KENNETH KARL DITKOWSKY,

Attorney-Respondent,

No. 642754.

Commission No. 2012PR00014

FILED – March 9, 2012

COMPLAINT

Jerome Larkin, Administrator of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, by his attorney, Lea S. Black, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 753(b), complains of Respondent, Kenneth Ditkowsky, who was licensed to practice law in the State of Illinois on November 28, 1961, and alleges that Respondent has engaged in the following conduct which tends to defeat the administration of justice or to bring the courts or the legal profession into disrepute and which should subject him to discipline pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 770:

COUNT I
(False statement to a third person in relation to Mary Sykes)

1. In or about 2000, Respondent prepared estate planning documents for Mary Sykes (“Sykes”). Respondent revised those estate planning documents for Sykes in 2002 and in 2003. Both wills devised Sykes’ personal effects and other items of household goods and furnishings to her daughters, Carolyn Toerpe (“Toerpe”) and Gloria Sykes (“Gloria”). At all times alleged in this complaint, Respondent had not had contact with Sykes since 2004.

***Response***

Prior to 2004, Respondent had been the long time family counsel for Mary G. Sykes (Mary G) and her husband Charles, and Respondent was well acquainted with this couple, their legal needs and their finances and family history. If Atty Ditkowsky (“KD”) is talking about gold coins missing, there is no doubt in my mind he knows of what he speaks–without betraying prior atty client privileges. Moreover the gold coins, Mary G and Charles stuffing cash into mattresses, is well known legend in the family and both Charles and his nephew, Mr. Biddy, now deceased, collected gold coins for decades.

2. On July 20, 2009, Toerpe filed a petition in the Circuit Court of Cook County to have Sykes adjudicated a disabled person due to concerns that Sykes’ suffered from dementia. Toerpe’s petition also sought Toerpe’s appointment as the guardian of Sykes’ estate and person. The Circuit Court Clerk docketed the matter as Estate of Mary Sykes, docket number 2009 P 4585.

***Response***

Carolyn Toerpe for years had been estranged to many family members and her relationship with her mother and her sister was tenuous at best. Gloria was invited by both her mother to move back to Chicago in 2000 (father Charles recently died) and that she would “buy her” a home on the back lot. Gloria put down a down payment, bought the house, put her mother’s name on the property as a testamentary convenience, and began to care for her mother while engaging in her profession of being a journalist. Gloria did the brunt of the work in shopping, entertaining and caring for her mother, who was active, but getting on in years. Still, Mary knew what she wanted and when she wanted it and clearly expressed her love for Gloria.

3. On or about July 24 2009, the court appointed Cynthia Farenga (“Farenga”) as Sykes’ guardian ad litem. On August 26, 2009, because Farenga was unable to attend court, the court appointed Adam Stern (“Stern”) special guardian ad litem, and both Farenga and Stern served as guardians ad litem for Sykes at all times alleged in this complaint.

***Response***

After Atty. Farenga (CF) returned from her vacation in August 2009, Atty Stern (AS) should have been dismissed. The appointment of 2 GAL’s is highly atypical and a strain on any estate and family. The question is, why were there 2 GAL’s.

4. On November 3, 2009, Gloria filed a cross-petition in case number 2009 P 4585, nominating the Cook County Public Guardian to serve as Sykes’ guardian. Shortly thereafter, Gloria orally sought to be appointed the guardian of Sykes’ estate and person without amending her written cross-petition.

***Response***

More important is prior to this, Mary G, who liked to frequent the neighborhood bank one block away, and who checked on her accounts there perhaps several times per week, discovered that $4,000 was missing in July, 2009. Mary G immediately went to court, and with the assistance of one of the paralegals (and not Gloria), swore out a complaint for a Protective Order–a Complaint that STILL has not been heard by the Probate Court. More importantly Illinois Law expressly prohibits the Respondent to a Petition for a Protective Order as serving as Guardian. Carolyn was not and still is not eligible to serve as Guardian of anyone. Carolyn’s excuse was she moved the money to set up a retirement account for her mother–a preposterous alibi because at age 90, Mary G is clearly unable to qualify for a retirement account. No investigation of where that money went has been done so far, despite repeated requests by KD, myself and family and friends of Mary G to have that money tracked. Because the Probate court early on denied Atty Dolgin’s several requests for discovery prior to appointing CT, no bank records of these transactions have ever been produced–though they should have been.

5. On December 10, 2009, the court adjudicated Sykes disabled based upon the report of Dr. Mark Amdur (Dr. Amdur never saw Mary G Sykes) that Sykes was incompetent, and the court appointed Toerpe the plenary guardian of Sykes’ estate and person after a contested hearing on the care plans proposed by Toerpe and Gloria. On December 18, 2009, Gloria filed a motion to reconsider the December 10, 2009 order appointing Toerpe as Sykes’ plenary guardian.

***Response***

I was there during this hearing and it was clearly “wired”, “fixed”, “predetermined” or whatever you want to call it. Atty Jay Dolgin is a witness. Atty Dolgin told me the exact same thing on the way out of the courtroom. After the GAL’s disqualified my appearance–for notarizing a document and nothing further, the court then proceeded to trash Gloria’s “home care plan” whereas prior to this they helped Carolyn with her home care plan. Typically, prior to any trial or hearing, any party asking for discovery gets it. Atty Dolgrin, in open court asked Judge Connors for discovery and she responded with a snotty “why would you need that?” or something of the equivalent. In his great bravado, Atty Dolgrin responded, well I need to depose CT and ask her questions regarding a number of issues. The court immediately shut that down.

6. Between December 2009 and April 2010, Respondent was contacted by Gloria and other friends and family of Sykes regarding Sykes’ estate and Gloria’s desire to be appointed Sykes’ guardian. Respondent agreed to represent Gloria and other friends and family of Sykes in matters relating to Sykes’ estate.

7. On or about April 22, 2010, Respondent or someone at his direction sent a letter to Dr. Pramod Patel, Sykes’ treating physician. The letter, which sought information from Dr. Patel about his medical evaluation of Sykes, began by stating that Respondent represented “the interests of Mary Sykes.” Respondent enclosed with the letter a document he created and signed that purported to be an appearance form relating to case number 2009 P 4585. The purported appearance form bore the caption “Estate of Mary Sykes” and the case number 2009 P 4585, and it stated: “The undersigned does hereby enter the additional appearance of Mary Sykes (sic) in the above-captioned and numbered case.” Below the signature line, where Respondent listed his address and telephone number, Respondent identified himself as “Attorney for Mary G. Sykes.”

***Response***

This form should be an Exhibit to the complaint. I’m not too sure how important this is regardless. An appearance form means nothing. Any competent doctor would know that he has to obtain written consent of the person themselves in order to disseminate any information to third parties. An appearance form and a naked request is not enough. Moreover, KD was likely responding to a request from Gloria to obtain the information, and most likely Gloria was listed on her mother’s forms as being a person to release medical information to. In addition, Gloria holds the last Medical Power of Attorney Form for her mother and KD knew that. Regardless, KD was clearly trying to help Mary G, stop the isolation and the relentless persecution of Gloria by the GAL’s who had always favored Carolyn and treated Gloria with disdain.

8. At no time was Respondent representing Sykes, and at no time was he appointed to represent Sykes, and at no time had Respondent filed the purported appearance form in case number 2009 P 4585.

9. Respondent also sent the letter and attachments described in paragraph seven, above, to Sykes, Stern, Farenga, Gloria, and Peter Schmiedel (the attorney for Toerpe) (“Schmiedel”).

10. Respondent’s statements in his letter to Dr. Patel that he represented Sykes, as described in paragraph seven, above, and his attachment of an unfiled appearance on Sykes’ behalf, were false and misleading, and Respondent knew that they were false and misleading because at no time before sending the letter and attachments described in paragraph seven above, did Respondent speak to Sykes about representing her in relation to case number 2009 P 4585, Sykes had not communicated with Respondent nor authorized him to send the letter to Dr. Patel, and at no time prior to sending the letter and attachments described in paragraph seven, above, did Respondent seek or obtain leave of the court to file an appearance on behalf of Sykes.

***Response***

See above. Gloria held the last Power of Attorney form for her mother, she likely was listed on her mother’s medical information form as being allowed to obtain information, and KD was at all times working with Gloria’s permission. At the time, KD was clearly seeking a method to help Mary G.

11. Respondent’s letter to Dr. Patel and his attachment of a purported appearance on behalf of Sykes were intended to mislead Dr. Patel that Respondent represented Sykes, and were designed to get Dr. Patel to release information to Respondent regarding Sykes’ medical and mental health condition in order for Respondent to assist Gloria in her desire to be appointed plenary guardian over Sykes.

***Response***

Correction, by this time CT had already been appointed. The only thing KD was to try to represent Gloria and/or her mother to get Carolyn removed–and based upon his knowledge of the Protective Order Petition, the isolation of Mary and missing unaccounted for funds, it was well deserved. Since Gloria has never subsequently filed a Petition to become her mother’s guardian since Dec. of 2009, this paragraph is pure speculation. KD simply wanted a dangerous guardian removed. He knew his former client well, he knew that Gloria cared for Mary G for 11 years and helped support her, and he was well aware of the situation.

12. By reason of the conduct described above, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct:

a. making a false statement of material fact of law to a third person, in violation of Rule 4.1(a) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct;

b. conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, in violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct;

c. conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of Rule 8.4(d) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct; and

d. conduct which tends to defeat the administration of justice or to bring the courts or the legal profession into disrepute.

***Response***

Nothing could be further from the truth. KD was fulfilling his obligations as a lawyer and officer of the court to make the court aware of serious issues involved in the appointment and continuing appointment of CT as Plenary Guardian–issues presented in great detail below.

COUNT II
(False Statements about judicial officials)

13. The Administrator realleges paragraphs one through 11 of count I, above.

14. In or about 2010, Gloria contacted Respondent regarding the court’s appointment of Toerpe as Sykes’ guardian. After being contacted by Gloria, Respondent began a campaign of sending emails to various family members and friends of Sykes, the guardians ad litem (Stern and Farenga) (“the GALs”), and various law enforcement agencies, in which Respondent made allegations that Sykes was the victim of elder abuse, and that the GALs and the court had acted inappropriately with respect to Sykes’ estate, that they had violated the law, and had physically or mentally harmed Sykes. Respondent sent emails on almost a daily basis from April 2010 through the date the Administrator referred an investigation of Respondent’s conduct to the Inquiry Board.

Calls for an investigation are a constitutional right. An attorney does not leave his constitutional rights at the door step upon taking the oath of officer; rather, these constitutional rights become more important than ever and every attorney should take the type of proactive initiative that KD has taken in this case–all without interest and all without pay. He is to be commended.

15. The e-mails referred to in paragraph 14, above, include, but are not limited to:

a. An October 10, 2010 e-mail to Gloria and other friends and family of Sykes, wherein Respondent accused the court of impropriety and accused the GALs of criminal conduct after the judge adjudicated Sykes incompetent based upon an evaluation by a doctor obtained by Gloria by stating:

Your personal rights have been violated by the Court acting against its own rules and by the judge directing doctor shopping…

***Response***

Isn’t it true if you’re having a doctor make an evaluation, if the doctor is not independently selected, and moreover this doctor never even saw Mary G but wrote up a report, that is likely “doctor shopping?”
**** End Response****

however, when a Judge knowing she has not (sic) jurisdiction issues orders that under color of statue deprive a citizen of his/her civil rights there are civil and criminal penalties…

[the failure of the Court to investigate ‘doctor shopping (see August 31 transcript) including Judge Connors counseling on the subject, the application for protective order etc is also not protected…

This is also the reason that we contacted and will continue to contact Federal officials who have jurisdiction to address the criminal conduct that is polluting the Probate Division of the Circuit Court.

In my opinion Stern and Feranga (sic) are at the very least accessories to criminal conduct.

***Response***

The GAL’s in probate are supposed to investigate allegations of fraud and crime. In this instance, they have turned a blind eye. While numerous family members repeatedly state there were numerous gold coins and cash, the GAL’s have not investigated. They have not asked for discovery of CT’s finances, her bank records, investigated the remodeling of her home or purchases therein. KD is right to ask the GAL’s to simply do their job. The Probate Court summarily denied discovery on CT (Atty Dolgin is witness to this), and the GAL’s continue to ignore these issues. It is further important to note that there is no inventory or accounting to be found in the court’s files when I reviewed it back in January of 2012. Nothing, nada. Oh, there were orders to file an inventory, BUT nothing is actually in the file. Now, why is that?`

***End Response****

b. A February 11, 2011 e-mail to the GALs, Naperville Police, Illinois State Police, Schmiedel, and friends and family of Sykes, stating:

Re: Mother isolated again

After reading and doing my own investigation I’ve come to the understanding that the Mary Sykes case is a posterboard (sic) Elder Abuse and Financial Exploitation case in the worst traditions of the legal profession. Yesterday in an e-mail Mr. Stern admitted that even though the order appointing a plenary guardian referred to a hearing – THERE WAS NO HEARING. What there was (sic) an agreement between the two GALs and the plenary guardian accepted by the Court that Mary Sykes was incompetent and that the very person who Mary filed a verified petition for an order of protection should be appointed plenary guardian.

c. An April 9, 2011 email through the contact page on the website for the National Committee for the Prevention of Elder Abuse, stating:

This situation appears to be a scandal greater than Greylord! Yet because of politics et al – the financial exploitation is protected. It has been alleged that no (sic) only do the abusers profit, but so do the GALs but also the judges.

d. A May 11, 2011 email to the GALs and friends and family of Sykes, stating:

Re: gloria (sic) on TV

Time is short! It is getting shorter! Fish or cut bait.

As gold is over $1500 an ounce, the gold coins are worth about $3000 each. That means there is almost a million in coins! That would make the theft a Class 1 felony! Aiding and Abetting is also a criminal act. A GAL is the eyes and ears of the Court – that fact creates a duty.

e. A June 7, 2011 email to the GALs and friends and family of Sykes, stating:

Re: Significant fact that appears to have been suppressed

As you are aware, the NASGA people, Gloria Sykes and the friends and family have been complaining bitterly that there is something inappropriate with the appointment of the very person who Mary Sykes filed a complaint for a protective order against as her plenary guardian. [T]he fact that this appointment was done by the Court entering an order upon the agreement of the proposed plenary guardian, and the two guardian (sic) ad litem suggest (sic) impropriety! The fact that even serious neglect admitted by the plenary guardian is defended by the GAL is highly suspicious.

f. A January 12, 2012 email to the GALs and friends and family of Sykes as a result of YouTube videos of Sykes posted by Gloria and never produced in court or to the GALs, stating:

Re: Financial statement(s)/inventory due on the 10th of January 2012

With the videos now on the internet, they cannot be altered or surpressed (sic). They stand today as stark evidence that in August/Oct/Nov 2009 Mary Sykes was totally competent and the agreement referred to by Mr. Stern in his e-mail to you which was turned into a court order by the presiding Judge Connor was wrong and inappropriately and miscreantly (sic) took away your mother’s civil rights.

g. A January 17, 2012 email to Sergeant Tom Krammer of the Naperville Police Department, stating:

Re: How to pay off your congressman

I suspect that the plenary guardian has dipped into Mary’s money and to keep the GALs happy has given them some cash. Of course the cash had to be shared with their clout. The clout is not going to return dime one, and thusly, doing the right thing would create a ‘cash flow problem.’ Someone is going to have to account and that means the million dollars in cash, Au coins, and jewelry will have be (sic) returned. The Tapes that you have been playing on your blog demonstrate that the determination that Mary was incompetent was pure fraud. Ergo, the Judge, the two guardian ad litem, and the plenary guardian committed old fashioned theft!…

The guardians and their ‘clout’ had fool proof scam going with massive protection from the political elite. It was a perfect crime as every theft would be approved one way or another by a judge’s rubber stamp. I am not certain the Judges actually have (had) any idea of what they were ‘covering up!’ For instance, reading the transcripts and the statements made by Judge Connors, it is questionable if she knows any law whatsoever.

***Response***

I believe he is referring to the fact 1) the Probate court was reversed on the issue of sanctions; 2) the Probate court dispensed with procedure and denied Gloria discovery after repeated requests; 3) the Probate court helped Carolyn with her care program and trashed Gloria’s on trivial grounds (read the transcript, I have it and will publish it on the internet); 4) the court was informed by PS that the sisters never received Soldini notices and the court said it was enough they were in court–despite the fact those notices contain important legal information and warnings and despite there is no case law that says that; 5) the court knows that Carolyn shut off Gloria’s gas for months and this is a violation of the CRLTO amounting to thousands of dollars in liability against the Estate of Mary G (“Estate”) and did not immediately remove her; 6) the court has stated that it does not need to comply with § 1401 regarding a judgment entered in another court–the Probate court said it could attack any judgement at any time–which is not the law or the caselaw in Illinois; 7) the court was told but ignored the fact that CT was the Respondent in a Petition for a Protective Order and no hearing was ever noticed or set; 8) Gloria had filed numerous motions in Probate and was told after I was disqualified that her pro se motions could not be heard because “she had no attorney”–how bad is that?; 9) the Probate court now knows that the § 1401 two year limitations period has well passed to attack the Lumberman’s funds frozen in Indiana, but refuses to dissolve that injunction because it believes it “can attack any judgment at any time”, 10) the GAL’s and PS know better they must file a § 1401 motion to attack a judgment, and they let the two years pass creating a liability of $200,000 to the Estate based upon malpractice and CT should be removed for that reason alone and PS should be barred from representing any Estate in Illinois; 11) the Probate court took my laptop during one status call and refused to let me take notes–creating a § 1983 violation and abuse of process, –and so on and so on.

*** End Response****

h. A February 16, 2012 email to the GALs, Schmiedel, the Cook County Sheriff’s Office, and the Illinois State Police, accusing a judge of violating another court’s automatic stay order, even though he knew that the automatic stay had been lifted, by stating:

Re: Dissipation of the Mary Sykes Estate

You reported to me that Judge Stuart appeared to just give lip service to Schmiedel’s protestations and really did nothing negative. That has been the pattern. I was surprised that she violated the automatic stay – you (sic) home is part of the Bankruptcy proceeding and Mr. Schmiedel in seeking to partition it without a specific modification of the stay is contempt of Court. The contempt of court provides for the assessment of attorney fees. That might help you get an attorney. In my opinion Mr. Schmiedel took a very risky course of action! I do not know why he would do such a thing.

i. A February 16, 2012 email to the GALs and friends and family of Sykes, suggesting that he was going to pursue criminal action against Schmiedel by stating:

Re: Sykes

Gloria, check with the postal inspector – I understand that Schmiedel produced an envelope that missed a key element. If in fact he mailed it, he also intercepted it. The interception of mail is a federal crime.

j. A February 17, 2012 email to Stern and Schmiedel, threatening criminal action and sanctions alleging that two of Sykes’ sisters did not have notice of a the petitions for guardianship filed by Toerpe and Gloria when they were present in court, by stating:

Re: Safe harbor note

No matter how this matter is sliced and diced it is clear that without the Sodini notices having been appropriately served, there is no jurisdiction for the probate court to do anything, and when this matter is examined by law enforcement it will be examined by the clear light of hindsight. The partition action against scheduled property is clearly improper and violates the automatic stay.

All that said, the Federal Courts historically have not been very tolerant of ‘gotta’ type enforcement. Therefore, even though I am not representing Ms. Sykes I am suggesting to you (and Mr. Schmiedel) that if you do not unwind whatever action you have taken in connection with the illegal partition lawsuit by the close of business on Tuesday next, Ms. Sykes will seek a Court order from the United States Bankruptcy Court seeking to hold you in contempt and damages. (Monday is a holiday)…

****Response***

Since when has it been an ethical violation to inform a client or even a member of the public what elements constitute a crime and they should contact the authorities promptly? This is what attorneys are supposed to do!

***End Response***

k. A February 17, 2012 email to Farenga, stating:

Re: safe harbor

I did not include you in the safe harbor letter that I sent to Stern and Schmiedel as I was informed that you were not in Court on Thursday and therefore was (sic) not part of the partition fiasco. If you were indeed part, I am certain that Stern will share my e mail with you. It should be taken seriously.

The policy that has been demonstrated in the Sykes case has been naked intimidation. Gloria is the first target, and everyone else who was upset by the perfidy exhibited a secondary target. Even I was not immune. It has been part of the makeup of my generation of lawyers not to ambush adversaries, but, to give them every opportunity to do the right thing. It has been my experience that a better result is obtained if you give the miscreants an opportunity to back off! Thus, the safe harbor letter.

l. A February 18, 2012 email to Farenga, the Cook County Sheriff, and the Illinois State Police, threatening criminal action against the GALs by stating:

Re: safe harbor

I sent you the safe harbor letter as a courtesy – you have every right to ignor (sic) it, and you have every right to have to deal with the consequences…

The safe harbor letter gave you and your friends an opportunity to mitigate the damages that you caused and are causing. The letter and your responses are strong evidence that the miscreant actions were and are intentional. The abuse and financial exploitation of Mary Sykes is now of record as an intentional act on the part of court appointed individuals! The law enforcement people now have no excuse for not prosecuting the villians (sic) to the full extent of the law!

m. A February 18, 2012 email to Gloria, Farenga, Cook County Sheriff, Illinois State Police, and Naperville Police, threatening criminal action against the GALs by stating:

Re: safe harbor 42 USC sec 1983

Spoilation (sic) of evidence is a cause of action – you should add it to your adversary complaints.

***Response***

This in particular is a good one, I never knew spoliation of evidence is a cause of action. I thought it was the subject matter for a Motion to Compel that the recipient of discovery did not turn over the document or thing but instead destroyed it.

***End Response***

Mr. Schmiedel’s statement to the Court that the Estate of Mary Sykes was down to fourthousand (sic) dollars is most disturbing. That means that about a million dollars in assets have been dissipated or have been divided. That explains why both GALs refuse to perform the simple tasks that were assigned to them…

Generally, the appointment of a person as a guardian is not the granting of a license to steal! The commission of a felony is not part of the job description of a guardian. Buck vs Bell is not authority to perform ‘retro active abortion’ on a senior citizen. We will have to read the Obama care legislation, but I have doubts if congress authorized funds for the procedure.

Gloria – I copied the Naperville Police Department on this and several other e-mails. I desire that they do some wellness checks to assure us that Mary Sykes has not been retroactively aborted!

***Response***

Okay, that was funny BUT see my comment elsewhere. The murder of a victim of financial exploitation is common where funds are finally depleted.

***End Response**

n. A February 21, 2012 email to friends and family of Sykes, stating:

RE: Today’s hearing and yesterday’s visit

They are no (sic) aware that the tide has turned and 1) they are going to be paying a humongous sum in income taxes and penalties, 2) they are going to face a bunch of lawsuits that their insurance does not cover, and 3) every dime that the (sic) stole must be returned. As they paid a referral fee to their clout they are going to have to make this up out of their own pockets.

The question has to be asked: Why do they not just start persecuting Gloria and Mary? They are of the generation that does not make an analysis of a problem before addressing it. Farenga’s impulse is to try to intimidate, PS to lie is (sic) way out, and Stern to slime his way out. This has worked for them in the past. The problem that they have is that Gloria is not going to let them out! She is going to make each of them famous. She will quote from the treasure trove of transcripts and e-mails that has garnered, and with a few pictures and a compelling narative (sic) every one of Farenga’s words is going to echo in each of their ears for years after each goes to his/her final reward. In the Mary Sykes case the miscreants picked on the wrong people!

Gloria’s previous documentaries were very effective and well thought of. Her documentary on the Mary Sykes case will have special meaning and be very effective. It is very foolish not to take her seriously. Gloria’s work product will be written and viewed through the filter of hindsight. I predict that ******

o. A February 21, 2012 email to friends and family of Sykes, stating:

Re: Today’s hearing and yesterday’s visit

If the guardians/Judge/clout et al have skin in the game as we suspect that they do, they have a great deal to lose. Gloria’s demeanor protects her! Judge Stuart will go to her grave regretting the day she put Gloria in ‘chains!’ We are far from done with that outrageous act.

16. Respondent’s emails, as set forth in paragraph 15, above, that there was impropriety going on in relation to the Sykes case; that the GALs, the judges, and/or law enforcement were engaging in financial exploitation or had financially profited in some way in relation to Sykes’ guardianship case; that the judge had inappropriately taken away Sykes’ rights; and that Stern, Farenga, and the judge had committed theft were false.

***Response***

The statements are not false. The case was likely wired. Whether cash changed hands or not, no one will ever know. However, the result is the same. A railroaded Guardianship with no discovery and no Soldini notices. CT helped with her care plan while Gloria’s was dismissed for ridiculous petty reasons. A Dr. Amdur who filed a report but had not seen or met Mary G. A Dr. Patel who was Mary’s primary case physician for years and would not sign a letter of incompetency. A raft of close family friends and family (sisters) who would testify they knew of hundreds of gold coins, thousands of dollars hidden in the home–all gone. Two GAL’s–to protect one another’s backsides. CF and AS who have not obtained the bank records regarding the missing $4,000. A Petition for a Protective Order filed by Mary G that was never heard nor considered. The GAL’s filing a complaint now saying that Soldini notices were not required because the sisters were in court on the date of the hearing. What? Now Illinois law or some (new) case says these maybe waived. Don’t the sisters have the right to 14 days advance notice of the hearing? Videos that slowly disappear off of Youtube without explanation and emails to youtube go unanswered. (The videos are now safely up on Facebook under MaryGSykes and are the subject of numerous cross posts on the internet). Gloria’s $200,000 in assets were frozen in a preliminary injunction motion but no hearing has ever been set for those. My disqualification for notarizing one document–preposterous–the GAL’s wanted me gone because they knew about the family and what was going on. They did not want a competent attorney in there.

Last year, Carolyn T. had Gloria’s gas turned off at her residence, a violation of the Chicago Residential Landlord Tenant Ordinance (“CRLTO”) for approximately 5 months, rendering the unit uninhabitable, and Gloria had to rent elsewhere. This violation is or will be part of the adversarial proceedings in bankruptcy for Gloria. AS and CF knew about Carolyn T’s gross violation of these ordinances in managing property for her mother, yet AS and CF had no calls to remove her for violating the CRLTO and bringing liability of $200 to $500 per day plus reasonable attorneys fees upon Mary T’s estate.

And let’s talk about the court system. The judges are buddies with the GAL’s and vice versa because the judges appoint them so they can make money from a well funded estate. Many a GAL has done nothing but stir up controversy in a family to churn a bill. The judges tolerate it because the GAL’s support them and make campaign contributions. The nursing homes and elder care facilities donate to the campaign funds of probate court judges. The judges have an interest in cozying up to those that are linked into the nursing home and elder care business and finding incompetency where there might not be anything at all because once declared incompetent the person can be put in a facility without any fuss or say in this whatsoever. Any senior that complains or kicks up a fuss is drugged or sedated there. The judges have an interest in accepting testimony from “doctors” that always find incompetency–even where the doctor never even saw the patient. The courts have good reason to deny all discovery against the doctor, how he was chosen, in how many cases he found incomptency and which side he was on.

Ever go to a nursing home and take a survey? 90% of the patients want to go home. They don’t understand why they are there when they say they have money and had a good home or apartment. No one ever investigates. No one cares. If anyone, anywhere, protect the rights of these most vulnerable persons in our society, the nursing homes would be much emptier–and so would the pockets of a lot of attorneys, court systems and elder care facilities. That does not make the system right–it makes it pitiful. We treat animals in shelters better than our elderly in nursing homes–at least a cat or dog can hope for a fur-ever home.

It is not true that Mary G didn’t want to come to court. The one time she was there, she tried to talk but the judge would not permit it. Mary G wants to go home. She wants to live in her own home and have Gloria care for her–as Gloria did for 11 years. But what is happening right now? CT has evicted her own sister. She is in the process of selling the home and putting it into a trust fund–a trust fund that CT will benefit from. This was the goal of CT all along. The entire case and procedure is nothing but the unmitigated evil of CT. A bigger conflict of interest could not exist.

PS apparently went to the mortgage holder, Chase, on Gloria’s home and told them that the home was abandoned and they had to secure it. One day Gloria came home and found all her furnishings from the home thrown into the snow, interior walls of the home destroyed by smashing the walls open, and a lock box put on the house. Chase admitted liability. Further CT lied to Chase, told them she was on Gloria’s safe deposit box, when she was not, and had the box drilled open.

Further, the GAL’s knew that they wanted to attack Gloria’s August 2008 settlement agreement and final order on her Lumberman’s case. Atty Brodsky in August 2010 told the court and the GAL’s if they wanted to attack a judgment, they had to file a 1401 petition in 2 years. (The deadline was nearly up at that point). Judge Connors said she could alter that judgment at any time–which is contrary to Illinois law on the subject. The GAL’s never filed any motions to attack that judgment and the funds that are frozen should now be released to Gloria. The GAL’s should do it and the court sua sponte.

Currently KD has determined that Illinois nursing homes are LLC’s that under the law may not charge for administrative services to the corp. However, these entities have traditionally charged the state millions in administrative fees–do you really think there is no conflict? Do you really think there is a reason to “get rid” of KD. It would be very convenient for a lot of clout happy people right now.

Moreover, the Petition does not mention that CF and AS had KD sanctioned for $5,000 and that sanction was overturned on appeal. Where is the complaint against them for hailing KD into a court where he had never appeared before as a means to intimidate him? They filed under § 137 and this requires a filing or pleading in that court. KD never filed any documents in the Probate proceeding, but he was hailed in there by CF and AS and chewed out by the court and sanctioned–a sanction that was ultimately reversed.

17. Respondent either knew that his statements as described in paragraph 15, above, were false or he made the statements with reckless disregard as to their truth or falsity.

KD has done nothing but state the truth and ask the questions that no one wants to hear. Why did Judge Connors deny Atty Dolgrin his repeated requests for discovery prior to a hearing to appoint Carolyn? Why was the medical report of a doctor that never even saw Mary G used to declare her incompetent? Why were the sisters never given their Soldini notices and why now are the GAL’s and even the ARDC saying that notices were not required when in fact there were and they contain important disclosures regarding the legal rights pertaining to those two sisters. Why was this repeated ad infinatum with no inquiry and response by either Judge Connors or Judge Stuart? Why did Judge Connors say in August of 2010 that she did not have to follow Illinois State law § 1401 and she could declare any judgment anytime invalid? When PS and the GAL’s failed to file a Petition against Gloria and serve her with a motion to reopen that judgement pursuant to § 1401, the judge did not remove all of them for malpractice? Why was not CT removed for shutting off Gloria’s gas when she knew Gloria was living there and that was a breach of the CRLTO entitling Gloria in an adverse proceeding against the Estate of Mary G a fine of $200 to $500 per day, which amounted to thousands of dollars in fines.

KD has not said that the Judges were thieves or that AS, CF and PS are thieves. It is clear from his writing he is making a statement that these miscreants have obvious motives to form a conspiracy and exploit Mary G and her millions in gold coins. He has repeatedly asked the Naperville police to investigate and they ignore him. He has the right to do this and request wellness checks because Mary G’s life IS clearly in danger. Case studies of elders that are financially abused show that once the money is depleted, the victim is then murdered. Why is no one concerned? The Naperville police very well should be. They should be out there every day. When they were told money was missing, why did not a detective perform a simple asset search? Why is there no warrant for the home to check on expensive repairs and upgrades?

18. By reason of the conduct described above, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct:

making an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and would pose a serious and imminent threat to the fairness of an adjudicative proceeding, in violation of rule 3.6(a) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct;

What harm? CT has already been long appointed. All of the above emails were written after that occurred in Dec of 2009. Blogs on the internet are now “serious and imminent threat[s]?” This is no jury case of major importance. It has been repeated in no media outlets. Gloria has not filed a Petition to Remove CT (though it is well deserved). There are no upcoming proceedings. This is all clearly after the fact. There is no judge to influence regarding appointment of a Guardian, CT has already been appointed and then these emails have been written.

making a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge, adjudicatory officer or public legal officer, in violation of Rule 8.2 of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct;

conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, in violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct;

conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of Rule 8.4(d) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct;

presenting, participating in presenting, or threatening to present criminal charges to obtain an advantage in a civil matter, in violation of Rule 8.4(g) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct; and

***Response***

KD has NEVER threatened to present criminal charges. He has merely analyzed the situation at hand, and based upon his decades of experience in law, he has provided his legal opinion based up the facts presented to those that are or maybe harmed by criminal actions. He has only called upon the Naperville police to further investigate and he has that right. In fact, it is a duty under Himmel.

conduct which tends to defeat the administration of justice or to bring the courts or the legal profession into disrepute.

WHEREFORE, the Administrator requests that this matter be assigned to a panel of the Hearing Board, that a hearing be held, and that the panel make findings of fact, conclusions of fact and law, and a recommendation for such discipline as is warranted.

***Response***

Many people have already written the ARDC that it is CF, AS and PS that should be investigated and not KD or myself. KD has no financial motive in any of this and has never present Gloria with any bill. I have not worked for Gloria except to answer limited questions since January of 2010 when CF and AS wrongfully and with ill intent, disqualified me. (CF stated in the hallway outside the court that she did not want me on the case because I would “paper her to death.”) After that, Gloria never trusted me again and doesn’t fully understand what happened. All the caselaw, in Illinois and throughout the nation, is clear that you can’t disqualify an attorney based upon a simple notarization of a document.

The only persons saying that KD and myself need investigation is only CF and AS. A petition on the internet has already collected over 100 signatures attesting to the fact that CT should be removed as guardian. KD is only repeating what has already been well ascertained and documented in this family and in the court proceedings. The videos are on the internet showing Mary is competent, capable and thinks logically about herself, her situation and her family. From those videos, it is clear that CF lied to the court when she said that Mary dictated letters to the court for help because the videos clearly show Mary writing more letters for help and Gloria only helping with spelling. This is a half hour of video! Mary G Sykes wants to go home and live in her own home. Gloria has pledged to support her and care for her–something she had done quite capably for 11 years prior to this proceeding. It is time to get rid of all of CT, PS, AS and CF and make them the subject of a thorough investigation.

From Ken Ditkowsky

Posted on March 16, 2012 by Joanne M Denison

In response to the Complaint against him published by the ARDC (which, for the record, I believe is “unflipping believable”?

That you for your response to the spurious complaint filed by an ARDC attorney.

Just for the record I do intend to file a civil rights lawsuit against Cynthia Farenga, Adam Stern and Peter Schmiedel for violation of my and my client’s first amendment rights. As there Judge Connors had no jurisdiction her entering orders against me was wrongful. They provide the ‘state action’ necessary to meet the criterion of 42 USCA 1983.

I have prepared a motion to dismiss the ARDC complaint. It is totally improper as:

1) I have an absolute right to communicate with law enforcement and my clients. This is kindergarten First Amendment.

2) I have an absolute right to communicate to such ‘august’ persons as Adam Stern, Cynthia Farenga, and Peter Schmiedel. I can write them anything I want from love letters to and including the e-mails I sent them. I am sorry that it hurts their feelings to be told that they violated the law by aiding and abetting the denial of Mary Sykes human rights. It is too bad that they are being informed the it is wrong to deprive Mary Sykes of her liberty, her assets and her life.

3) The probate act is not a burglary license! It is also is not a license to deprive any person of any right, privilege, or immunity without due process of law. It is not due process of law for Adam Stern to wrongfully and untruthfully waive Mary Sykes rights as to anything. It is also wrong for a judge to accept that action.

UNFORTUNATELY, IT APPEARS THAT THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS HAVE BEEN SUSPENDED WHEN an august person like Stern, Farenga, et al determine that they in their infinite wisdom ****. Unfortunately what happened in the Sykes case is happening right now to some other victim and some other victim’s family.

As many lawyers have made clear – if it unethical to ‘do the right thing’ and protect those who are unable to protect themselves it is time to put down the ‘books’ and take up some other entity that is more effective. Temporarily I have picked up my computer and punch out these e-mails as I urge everyone aggrieved to do after they read the response that you (JoAnne) drafted.

After the Commission rules on my Motion to Dismiss, I will determine how much of the response to adopt. The person who drafted the complaint should be ashamed. The First Amendment is the rosetta stone of our society!

signed Ken Ditkowsky

I will post my response to the Complaint filed today on this Blog.

MEMORANDUM

Posted on March 15, 2012 by Joanne M Denison

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 though 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