www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

*an no offense to Pole Dancers.  I know they honest, hard working women trying to support a family or get thru college.  Corrupt officials are pretty much the low of the low dirty, flea dogs.  Okay no offense to dirty flea dogs, I wish a good family for them.

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

And KD fails to mention that the other day I received a completely shocking report from Ms. Belanger–a Mass. licensed atty whose father is in a guardianship where a CPA and GAL asserted in court that unbelievably his $9 million estate will be depleted in 7 years!  She asks me if that is true.  I replied, it is as long as they figure a way to churn those fees into millions and give business to each of their buddies over the next 7 years–nursing homes, mega pharma treatments at wired in docs, rehab that goes on forever, psychiatric care that goes on forever.  You name it and this $9 million lawyer that gave his two daughters POA and set up a trust to protect his estate from probate, now has a GAL and a CPA as guardian churning those fees and preventing the daughters from seeing their own father!  They have been told it is “too upsetting”. Dad is on major psychotropic medicines because he wants to pick up the phone to call his daughters, he wants to get it in the car and drive to their homes and see his own grandchildren.  But Mass. Probate court prohibits it because–he has $9 million in a bank account at Mellon, NYC and the court appointed a lawyer and a CPA over his own daughters and ignored his well planned estate wishes.  All because Ms. Belanger was dealing with the bank one day and threatened to move the money and they swept in with dad’s former CPA and attorney and put them in charge!  Scary.  He is now a doped up prisoner in his own home.  He too, was “not interested” in attending the competency hearing–when in fact he was and the temp guardian already had it in place to have him drugged that day.

Because it seems the ARDC has repeatedly ignored any complaints Gloria has filed and they also seem to conveniently and accidently-on-purpose lose anything she sends them (a familiar event in this department–just ask Ken Ditkowsky how the ARDC managed to lose his two attachments — important Affidavits from Gloria and Scott which confirms that all allegations asserted in his emails and ultimately on this blog and other blogs–are in fact true and accurate allegations.)

From Gloria:

“*** It is procedure that spells much of the difference between rule by law and rule by whim or caprice. Steadfast adherence to strict procedural safeguards is our main assurance that there will be equal justice under law

– in Cunningham v. Public Service Co., 1992

In 1951 the Supreme Court in Joint Anti-Fascist Refugees Comm. v. McGrath, 341 US 123, took a close look at what happens when ‘due process’ is ignored and American Courts are lawless in their quest to ‘condemn’!.  “The right to be heard before being condemned to suffer grievous loss of any kind, even though it may not involve the stigma and hardships of criminal conviction, is a principle basic to our society.”  Apparently, attorneys Peter Schmiedel, Adam Stern and Cynthia Farenga have no “respect for the elementary rights of men” and to these attorneys, “democracy” is a spectator sport of which, as attorney Peter Schmiedel expressed, when he perpetrates his lawlessness he “has a good day” and “accomplishes a lot”.  That said, in this complaint to the ARDC let me add the following violations against Peter Schmiedel, Adam Stern and Cynthia Farenga, attorneys apparently protected by the ARDC and perhaps some political clout who are empowered to do great harm for their own financial gain:

1.  Peter Schmiedel, Adam Stern and Cynthia Farenga, one or all were suppose to send me a copy of the 13 April 2012 court ordered that had been entered: I have yet to see that court order and yet, on May 11, 2012, proceedings were held and ex parte discussions with the Court caused actions to take place, including decision to hold more hearings knowing that the Court lacks jurisdiction as Sodini notices were not served on my mother, Mary G Sykes’ two sisters and/or me.

2.  Attorneys Peter Schmiedel, Adam Stern and Cynthia Farenga have yet to served me with a 2-1401, and yet continue to collaterally attack a 2008 final order and Cynthia Farenga generated fradulent documents in order to coerce my financial adviser and financial institution into providing her confidential financial information.

3.  Attorneys Peter Schmiedel, Adam Stern, and Cynthia Farenga never served me with appropriate legal documents to even commence a partition action against me and yet, they have had a commissioner appointed (whose report was to be filed on or about the 16 March 2012, and a report I have yet to see) and continue to push for the sale of property of my estate knowing that the Probate Court lacks jurisdiction in this matter, too.

4.  That the US Trustee called attorneys Peter Schmiedel, Adam Stern and/or Cynthia Farenga and told them to return the property of my estate, and the three Attorneys, have refused to return all of the property of my estate.  (Judge Murrey entered an order that commencing at 8 am on the 19th May Toerpe and Company are to give me full access to my homestead 6014 N Avondale so I can “take as much time as I need to remove all of my personal property, including intellectual properties and confidential legal documents: that said, I have provided attorneys Peter Schmiedel and Amanda Byrnes with a list of personal property their client ‘removed’ from the property already and so far, I have no response to whether or not the property will be returned.)

5.  That there is a Court order entered giving me rights to visit with my mother  ‘approximately eery two weeks’ and thus far, I have yet to see or talk to my mother since March 2011: I am also being denied any telephone access to my mother.  This is also a violation of my mother’s rights and my  rights of association, which in a case that Cynthia Farenga perpetrated, James Srruck v. Public Guardian, the Appellate court made reference to and suggested that Mr. Struck has a right of association with his mother and therefore may sue his brother.

6.  That attorneys Peter Schmiedel, Cynthia Farenga and Adam Stern repeatedly attempt to or have ‘influenced’ Judges in the State, Appellate, and Federal Courts by misrepresenting the facts and malicious lies, including writing a letter to the Fed. Bankruptcy Judge (Cynthia Farenga) and as recent as a couple of days ago, Adam Stern’s attorney attempting to provide the Bankruptcy Judge with a Rule 23 Appellate order he claims  is law that should cause the court to dismiss an adversary haring against Adam Stern!

7.  Attorney Peter Schmeidel, Adam Stern and Cynthia Farenga lied to the court on Mary 11, 2012, reporting that they were not notified that I would not be in court: I will send the ARDC copies of proof of successful faxes to each attorney fax number(s).

“No better instrument has been devised for arriving at truth than to give a person in jeopardy of serious loss, notice of the case against him and opportunity to met it.”

Neither my mother nor I have had due process or equal protection of law because of the malicious contentions and efforts of attorneys Peter Schmiedel, Adam Stern and Cynthia Farenga…

And now, Fischel and Kahn have taught attorney Amanda Brynes to copy their lawless behavior and so, further complaints will also include the young attorney Amanda Brynes.

Meanwhile I have not spoken to or have had quality time with my mother, who is suffering the most, and her life shorted by the isolation, drugging, medical and emotional neglect, and the undue influences.  As Adam Stern wrote to me in an email which the ARDC has a copy of, ‘they’ have told my mother I abandoned her.  He went on to say he could tell my mother that I “abused her” instead!  Adam Stern does not have absolute immunity for murdering my mother!

Let me remind you that there are now TWO petitions for protective orders naming Carolyn Toerpe the respondent: Carolyn Toerpe is the client of Fishel and Kahn — Peter Schmiedel, Deborah Jo Soehlig, and Amanda Brynes.  If you read the 11 + volumes of verified court documents including transcripts, you will note that attorney Cynthia Farenga and Adam Stern also advocate for Carolyn Toerpe.  In fact, there are about 20 proceedings where the Ward, Mary G. Sykes is not even considered.  The court proceedings have been all about me, a 3rd party and only an “interested” party to the case. The need to intimidate, harass, and silence me apparently is the law of attorney Peter Schmiedel et al.

And attorney Cynthia Farenga actually had her husband Michael Crowley serve these fradulent papers on my financial adviser and institution(s).  I guess it truly is a ‘family affair’…

“The heart of the matter is that democracy implies respect for the elementary rights of men, however suspect or unworthy; a democratic government must therefore practice fairness; and fairness can rarely be obtained by secret, one-sided determination of facts decisive of rights.”

– in Lankford v. Idaho, 1991

Gloria Jean Sykes

Bon Ami Productions, Inc.

773.910-3310(cell)

773.631-9262 (fax and office line)

Gloria also informs me that while CF has told the court she served Gloria with the Partition Action (note that document is not in the file between Mar 2011 and the present), it turns out that “Michael Crowley” is CF’s husband and he served the alleged documents (which turns out is only a pizza flyer).  CF got angry about that and emailed Gloria about doing “background checks on her” and Gloria replied she only checked on the internet which had all of the following information: Where CF’s kids went to school which was a private school, the church they attended and the obit of CF’s father who was a well connected lawyer AND worked for the water dept.  (Somehow someone directed Gloria’s water to be turned on causing damage to her house and a $500 bill.)  Again, CF’s using Michael Crowley, her husband to serve papers when that is expressly prohibited by statute because neither the parties nor their attorneys may serve papers in any lawsuit, nor can they use their family members to serve papers.  Somehow the law is not standing in the way of the abilities of the miscreants to terrorize Gloria, strip her of home and property and leave her couch surfing and penniless.

Mother’s day stinks.

From Gloria, read on.

Dear All,

Dear Readers;

I sat in a car yesterday to pick up my kids at college, which took about 6 hours, and have some fun them.  This Holiday Inn has high speed internet, so that is great (soon as I figured out how to diagnose and fix it!). This is what I drafted up during the car sit.  These were the questions I had about the case.

BUT Requests to Admit are a fun tool to use.  I saw that Gloria had some in the file and they were apparently filed but unanswered.  If that is the case, then they have been deemed admitted by operation of law, other than the fact I think that the court might have told Gloria she has no standing to file anything, which makes no sense since there is a provision in the Probate Act that any interested party can file a Petition to Remove the Guardian, and even just a note.  Well, as any attorney knows, the only way to really do a good job at that is to file pre-discovery before filing such a document.

But I don’t know, and I looked at the Probate Cases and I couldn’t find any Illinois cases that talk about how a daughter is not entitled to file something, or serve pre-filing discovery, or anything like that.  It just sounds like more AS and CF intimidation against Gloria.

Now that more than one year of pleading have been filed, the pattern of ignoring, snubbing and making Gloria out to be some sort of false pariah in the case when she really has done nothing bad at all–except take excellent care of her mother for 10+ years, I guess it’s just business as usual for those guardians, because once the house is sold, they get paid.  Carolyn thinks her Trust is valid and she gets all the money and needs no reporting to anyone.

So read on below.

JoAnne

Requests to Admit.        These are directed mostly to the GAL’s.  I know these are the questions I have on the case.  I think answering such interrogatories would be most important.

The term “GAL’s” refers to AS and CF collectively.

The term CRLTO refers to the Chicago Landlord Tenant Ordinance.

The term “Estate” refers to the “Estate of Mary G Sykes” or case 2009 P 04585.

The term “White House” refers to the home where Mary G Sykes lived, or 6014 N Avondale.

The term “Brown House” refers to the home where Gloria Sykes lived prior to it being destroyed by mold, or 6016 N Avondale.

The term “Gloria” or “GS” means Gloria Sykes

The term “MGS” or “Mary” means Mary G Sykes

“PS” is Peter Schmeidel; “HW” is Harvey Waller; “CT” is Carolyn Toerpe; “FT” is Fred Toerpe; “CF” is Cynthia Farenga; “AS” is Adam Stern

The term “wired” means any type of corruption or preferential treatment in court, including promises of money, position, continued employment in and out of the courtroom, etc.  This also includes promises from any judge (Daley center or not), political favor, or court room employee for money, continued employment or preferential treatment.

You are directed to admit or deny the following statements:

1.    That you have been told by GS that $4,000 was removed wrongfully from the Pullman bank account of MS in 2009 and you took no action.

2.    That you are aware that this action caused MGS to prepare a Petition for an Order of Protection against CT.

3.    That you have been told that the removal of $4,000 from the bank account of MGS was allegedly to start a retirement account for MGS.

4.    That you have been told that the removal of $4,000 from the bank account of MGS was purportedly to start a retirement account for MGS

5.    That you knew that MGS at age 90+ was ineligible for a retirement account pursuant to IRS rules, regulations and/or statutory law.

6.    That at the time, MGS was not in need of establishing a retirement account.

7.    That you did not serve any discovery upon Pullman Bank regarding the withdrawl of the $4,000.

8.    That you did not track the $4,000 from Pullman Bank to any other bank account and find out who moved it and when.

9.    That you are not interested in whether CT misappropriate $4,000 from the funds of MGS and therefore did not conduct any proper investigation.

10.    That GS paid two mortgages for approximately 10+ years.

11.    That GS paid the mortgage on 6014 for approximately 10+ years.

12.    That GS paid the mortgage on 6016 for approximately 10+ years.

13.    That the income of MGS was substantially $1900 per month in the year 2010.

14.    That the income of MGS from 2005 to 2010 was $1900 per month.

15.    That the income of MGS being only $1900 per month was insufficient to pay all the expenses of MGS.

16.    That MGS prefers to eat vegetarian.

17.    That MGS prefers to eat vegetarian and organic.

18.    That CT does not provide MGS with organic, vegetarian food which MGS prefers.

19.    That GS always fed MGS a vegetarian diet.

20.    That GS regularly bought MGS high quality vegetarian food.

21.    That GS regularly shopped for MGS at Whole Foods.

22.    That GS regularly purchased a meal plan from Ambutol in Chicago.

23.    That you are aware Ambutol prepares gourmet vegetarian meals.

24.    That GS provided MGS with gourmet vegetarian meals from Ambutol.

25.    That CT does not shop at Whole Foods for the food for MGS.

26.    That CT does not provide as many vegetarian, organic foods as she can for MGS.

27.    That no GAL has ever recommended setting up a retirement account for a 90+ year old person, that you have ever head of.

28.    That you have never obtained any bank records from Pullman bank regarding the $4,000 withdrawal.

29.    That you were aware that CT was the Respondent in a Petition for an OOP in 2009.

30.    That prior to appoint CT as Plenary Guardian you did not properly inform Judge Connors of this fact.

31.    That when CT was appointed Plenary Guardian in Dec. 2009, you did not inform Judge Connors that the jurisdictional 14 day notice of hearing was served upon the two sisters of MGS.

32.    That when CT was appointed Plenary Guardian in Dec. 2009, you did not inform Judge Connors that the jurisdictional 14 day notice of hearing was never served upon sister Josephine.

33.    That when CT was appointed Plenary Guardian in Dec. 2009, you did not inform Judge Connors that the jurisdictional 14 day notice of hearing was never served upon sister Yolanda.

34.    You have never informed the court it has been acting without jurisdiction.

35.    PS has never informed the court it has been acting without jurisdiction since Dec 2009.

36.    HW has never informed the court it has been acting without jurisdiction since Dec 2009.

37.    A competent attorney would have promptly brought this issue to the court’s attention promptly after having been discoveed.

38.    KD and Gloria have been repeatedly informing you that the Probate Court is acting without jurisdiction.

39.    HW has admitted that no 14 day notices were timely served on sisters Yolanda and Josephine prior to the hearing appointing CT.

40.    HW has admitted on the record that no 14 day jurisdictional notices were timely served on Gloria prior to the hearing appointing CT.

41.    That the doctor’s report presented with CT’s Petition for Guardianship in July 2009 was legally deficient in that it was not signed by a medical physician that actually conducted the examination.

42.    That Dr. Motckya who signed the CP211 form was in fact a PsychD.

43.    That Dr. Motckya who is a PsychD cannot sign a CP211 pursuant to the Probate Act for the purposes of presenting a Petition for guardianship.

44.    That counsel for GS repeatedly asked for discovery prior to appointing CT as PG in Dec 2009.

45.    That GS was repeatedly denied any requests for discovery prior to appointing CT as PG in Dec 2009.

46.    That you did not tell the court that GS was entitled to discovery in this case in Dec 2009.

47.    That you have never, in fact told the court GS should be allowed discovery.

48.    That AS knowingly filed a wrongful petition for sanctions against KD.

49.    When AS filed a petition for sanctions against KD, both GAL’s knew he never had appeared in the Probate Court.

50.    That the filing of ARDC complaints against KD and JMD for expressing opinions on a blog constituted a violation of the Illinois CPA. 735 ILCS § 110 et. Seq.

51.    As a GAL, the filing of that ARDC complaint against KD brings liablity to the estate.

52.    A GAL that brings liability to a ward’s estate should immediately report it to the court and be removed.

53.    The reason why AS was not sanctioned by the the Probate Court for filing a false Petition for Sanctions against KD is because the court is wired–or it sure looks like it.

54.    AS filed a Petition to Disqualify JMD as counsel for Gloria because as CF said JMD will assuredly “paper me [meaning the GAL’s to death].”

55.    JMD accordingly became the subject of a Motion to Disqualify (“MTDQ”) filed by AS and endorsed by CF because she is a competent attorney.

56.    CF and AS knew that the filing of a MTDQ JMD was wrongful and in derrogation of well established law.

57.    CF and AS misrepresented to the court they had sufficient grounds to file the MTDQ when in fact they did not.

58.    That in Dec 2009 GS had filed a number of pleadings, and AS asked the court to strike all the pleadings of GS because she was pro se.

59.    That those pleadings in Dec 2009 were in fact filed pro se and so there was no reason to strike those pleadings.

60.    That only sleezy, underhanded attys pull such stunts mentioned in the two prior RFA’s.

61.    That CF and AS meet the description in the last RFA.

62.    That I am not surprised either one would pull such a low down stunt.

63.    That you have been informed by numerous family and friends that Gloria took excellent care of her mother for 10+ years.

64.    You have been informed that Gloria returned from California after her father died to take care of her mother.

65.    You have been informed that Gloria provided Mary with designer clothes to wear.

66.    You have been informed that Gloria provided Mary with monthly trips to the salon for hair and nails.

67.    That the Probate Court trashed Gloria’s care plan on purpose.

68.    That Gloria’s care plan was more than adequate.

69.    That while Gloria didn’t know the name of Mary’s one hypertension medication, she knew what a CBC was and the judge didn’t.

70.    Most people know that a CBC is a Complete Blood Count or Blood Panel and it is an essential part of a regular physical.

71.    One of the reasons the court trashed Gloria’s care plan was because Gloria lived upstairs and Mary lived downstairs at 6014 N. Avondale (“White House”).

72.    CT has a two level home with a basement.

73.    The court did not have a problem with the fact that Mary’s bedroom was on the second level and the other living areas were o the first floor of CT’s home.

74.    Mary lost 10% of her body weight due to a sore throat that lasted a week before CT dropped Mary off with Gloria.

75.    Mary subsequently required several trips to the emergency room which were not reported to the court.

76.    Gloria recognized that something was very wrong with Mary and took her to the doctor the day Mary was dropped off.

77.    That CT represented to the court that family would care for Mary during the day when she was at work.

78.    That subsequent to the appointment of CT, her daughter Kristen moved out of the home.

79.    That subsequent to the appointment of CT, FT did not want to care for Mary during the day.

80.    That subsequent to the appointment of CT, FT did not in fact care for Mary during the day.

81.    That Dr. Rabin signed and submitted a report to the court indicating Mary was incompetent.

82.    That Dr. Amdur signed and submitted a report to the court indicating Mary was incompetent.

83.    That Mr. Motckya, PsychD signed and submitted a report to the court indicating Mary was icompetent.

84.    That you reviewed these reports and agreed with their accuracy.

Each of the following questions refer to the “Doctor’s Reports” of Amdur, Rabin and Mr. Motckya, PsychD and the “Competency Examination.”

85.    You either knew or should have known at the time Mary wore custom hearing aids.

86.    Mary’s hearing was not tested before the Competency Exams were completed.

87.    You knew or should have known at the time Mary suffered from time to time with hypoglycemia or low blood sugar.

88.    A CBC or Blood Panel was not conducted immediately before any Competency Examination.

89.    That in derogation of CT’s care plan, Mary has been put in “adult day care” for low functioning adults.

90.    That while Mary was in “adult day care” she could have been living

91.    That prior to this, Mary wrote checks, was involved in the neighborhood gardening club, walker around her neighborhood nearly every day, walked to and from her doctor’s office and was very involved with her community.

92.    That Mary is now isolated with limited phone calls and visits from family.

93.    That the guardian CT is careful to isolate Mary from family.

94.    That CT claims that Mary is upset by Gloria when in fact Mary is upset when Gloria is around because she wants to go home.

95.    That CT claims Mary is upset by Gloria when in fact Mary asks Gloria to get her an attorney so she can go home.

96.    CT saw Mary only a few times per year before summer of 2009.

97.    CT filed a Petition for Guardianship because Mary filed a Petition for a Protective Order for wrongfully withdrawing $4,000 from her Pullman bank account.

98.    That you have been told that Carolyn drilled out Mary’s safe deposit box at Pullman Bank.

99.    That Gloria was also listed as a joint owner of the safe deposit box.

100.    That you have been told that valuables amount to X were found missing from the safe deposit box.

101.    That you have not investigated the missing contents.

102.    That you have not informed the Probate Court that CT drilled out a safe deposit box owned by Gloria without her permission.

103.    That you have been told that CT had Gloria’s Chase safe deposit box drilled out and the content removed.

104.    That the contents of Gloria’s safe deposit box was approximately $5,000.

105.    That you have not obtained the records from Pullman (now US Bank) regarding the drilling of Mary and Gloria’s safe deposit box.

106.    That you have no obtained the records from Chase regarding the drilling out of Gloria’s safe deposit box.

107.    That CT believes she is the Successor Trustee (“ST”) in the Mary G. Sykes Trust dated 2005(“Mary’s Trust”), when in fact she is not.

108.    That Mary’s Trust names Mary as the initial Trustee and also the Trustor which violates the Statue of Uses and renders the entire Trust document invalid.

109.    That KD and Gloria have repeatedly informed the GAL’s that Mary’s Trust is invalid because it violates the Statue of Uses.

110.    That CT filed an eviction proceeding against Gloria based upon her position as ST under Mary’s Trust knowing that this trust was invalid for violating the Statue of Uses.

111.    Because CT was not in fact the ST of Mary’s Trust, the eviction was wrongful.

112.    CT’s wrongful eviction has created substantial liability upon the Estate of Mary Sykes.

113.    CT also turned off the gas for the White House where Gloria was living in 2010, which in fact violated the CRLTO.

114.    Because she violated the CRLTO, CT has brought upon the Estate a possible violation fine of $200 to $500 per day.

115.    Because CT violated the CRLTO for several months, CT has brought upon the Estate a possible violation totaling more than $5,000.

116.    Because  CT violated the CRLTO for several months, CT has brought upon the Estate a possible violation totaling more than $10,000

117.    AS and CF should have filed a Petition for the Removal of CT for shutting off the gas where Gloria was living based upon these violations of the CRLTO creating massive liability to the Estate.

118.    Because AS and CF failed to remove CT for wilfully violating the CRLTO, they should have been removed as GAL’s.

119.    In winter of 2010, PS called Chase, Gloria’s mortgage holder and told Chase the brown house was abandoned.

120.    PS convinced Chase to “secure the property.”

121.    Gloria arrived home one day to find herself locked out of the Brown House, her secuirty cameras were disabled and the security system disabled and tampered with.

122.    Gloria arrived home to also find that interior walls in her Brown House were trashed, rendering the property completely uninhabitable–well beyond any remaining mold remediation.

123.    Gloria arrived home one day to find all of the furnishings remaining in her brown home were put in the snow behind her home.

124.    When Gloria’s home was locked and trashed, the GAL’s were promptly informed and failed to investigate.

125.    The GAL’s have told the Probate Court the Estate has a valuable interest in the Brown House and it should be partitioned.

126.    The prior statement is in fact a lie because the GAL’s have been informed repeatedly that Gloria owned the Brown House and Gloria only put Mary G on title as a joint owner as a testamentary convenience.

127.    That all the family members except CT agree that the Brown House is Gloria’s and the White House is Mary’s.

128.    That Gloria paid the mortgages on both homes for approximately ten+ years.

129.    That you were told repeatedly Mary’s income for ten+ years was approximately $1900 per month which was insufficient for her to pay her $1000 per month mortgage, plus utilities, clothing and other expenses.

130.    The GAL’s failed to investigate the severe destruction of the Brown House because they, as well as PS, desired to ensure Gloria was rendered utterly homeless for the purpose of intimidation.

131.    The GAL’s failed to investigate the severe destruction of the Brown House because they, as well as PS, desired to ensure Gloria was rendered utterly homeless for the purpose of intimidation.

132.    The GAL’s failed to investigate the severe destruction of the Brown House because they, as well as PS, were operating in a wired courtroom.

133.    The GAL’s failed for file a Petition to Remove Carolyn for violating the RLTO because they were operating in a wired courtroom.

134.    On May 11, 2012, you informed the Probate Court that Mary’s $1 million in gold coins was “Gloria’s fiction.”

135.    At that time, you did not inform the Probate Court how sister Yolanda could confirm Mary’s ownership of the coins and how they were in the safe deposit box before CT drilled it out.

136.    At that time, you did not inform the Probate Court how sister Josephine could confirm Mary’s ownership of the coins and how they were in the safe deposit box before CT drilled it out.

137.    At that time, you forgot to inform the Probate Court how sister Yolanda could confirm Mary’s ownership of the coins and how they were in the safe deposit box before CT drilled it out.

138.    At that time, you forgot to inform the Probate Court how sister Josephine could confirm Mary’s ownership of the coins and how they were in the safe deposit box before CT drilled it out

139.    That you have not conducted a complete and independent asset search for CT’s accounts.

140.    That you have not conducted a complete and independent asset search for FT’s accounts.

141.    That Mary wrote in her own handwriting (“Mary’s Directions) in Sept. 2009 that she wanted an attorney and wanted to live at home until she died.

142.    That you told the Probate Court that Mary’s Directions were dictated to her by someone else and she did not know what she was writing and this was a false statement

143.    That videos were posted on youtube.com and Vimeo.com which firmly confirm Mary’s Directions (“Videos”).

144.    Those Videos show Mary writing once again she wanted to live in her own home until she died and to have Gloria and Carolyn care for her there.

145.    You are aware that Gloria holds the last valid and enforceable Power of Attorney for Health Care from Mary. (The “POA”)

146.    This original POA document was produced in court in December of 2009 and the court ignored it.

147.    You initially told the court that this original POA document was a fake.

148.    When it shown to you and the court and it was determined it was an original and valid, Judge Connors summarily invalidated the document, without findings or a hearing.

149.    Judge Connors quipped it had to have been produced sooner–yet Gloria had mentioned it to her in several prior court status hearings and Gloria’s requests to effecutate this document were ignored.

150.    That a person who can pass an Illinois written Rules of the Road test does not have dementia.

151.    That a person who can pass an Illinois written Rules of the Road test does not have severe dementia.

152.    That a person who passes an Illinois written Rules of the Road test in January should not be declared incompetent later in July of that same year based upon a diagnosis of dementia, which is a chronic, progressive disease.

153.    That filing a motion to Disqualify JMD for merely notarizing a document is improperl

154.    That the notary clause in the document only stated the person appearing before the notary was in fact known to the notary to be that person and nothing more.

155.    That the GAL’s misrepresented to the court that JMD would be used to testify to show Mary’s competence or incompetence in August 2008.

156.    That JMD was never called to testify regarding the competence level of Mary.

157.    That the issues regarding the Lumberman’s funds disbursing payment in August 2008 (“Lumberman’s Settlement) are full and final and may not be attacked in any court of law.

158.    That 735 ILCS § 1401 provides in its pertinent part that an attack on a judgment must be brought within 2 years of the date of entry of judgment and therefore the Lumberman’s Settlement may no longer be attacked.

159.    That Gloria’s funds were illegally frozen in 2009, and the wrongful freeze continued to the date of this pleading.

160.    That in August of 2012 the GAL’s should have asked the court to unfreeze all of Gloria’s funds because the time to attack the Lumberman’s Settlement had passed.

161.    That in Dec 2009, HW wrongfully caused all of Gloria’s funds at Chase to be wrongfully frozen, rendering her penniless for more than a week.

162.    That the freezing of all of Gloria’s accounts in Dec 2009 in excess of the Order entered by the court was wrongful, bringing substantial liability upon the Estate.

163.    That the freezing of all of Gloria’s accounts in Dec 2009 should have created cause for the GAL’s to remove CT as plenary guarding for the wrongful actions of her counsel.

164.    That a guardian is legally responsible for the wrongful actions of her counsel.

165.    That you enjoy terrorizing Gloria.

166.    That it was funny that you complained Gloria had no current address when it was your plan all along to render her homeless and penniless.

167.    That this put a crimp in your evil plans.

168.    That no one cares you never have a master plan of evil.

169.    That PS’s evil deed on the 6016 home (“Gloria’s Home”) is pretty much going the same way, that is, south.

170.    That the mortgage on the home of approx. $200,000 is likely more than the home is worth.

171.    That it is not worth partitioning this house.

172.    That you have not figured this out.

173.    That mini-me had better master plans of evil than CF and AS.

174.    That your filing of ARDC complaints against KD and JD are about the same as whining like a 3 year old girl that has wet her pants and it feels real yucky now.

175.    That you have exerted undue influence in the 2009 P 4585 Probate Case (“MGS Case”).

176.    That you are aware that the MGS Case was wired.

177.    That you are aware that the appointment of CT as Plenary Guardian was wired.

178.    That the Probate court is about as corrupt as the Circuit Court was in the days of Greylord.

179.    That you form an integral part of this corruption.

180.    That you just don’t care anymore because the money is just too damn good in this poor economy.

Easy peasy Discovery

Interrogatories:

See attached Table of Torts.

1. Identify any statement(s) which you believe are incorrect and provide a corrected statement in lieu thereof.
And finally, don’t forget to read the Disclaimer on this website!

I thank Scott very much for going to court for both Mary and Gloria about a gazillion times and taking wonderful notes and thinking these very inciteful thoughts he is willing to share with us all.  Read on…..

From Scott:

Overview: All endeavors that are a work-in-progress tend to suffer from, “… the forest for the trees syndrome”.   Hardworking persons in any endeavor can get wrapped up in their own immediate perspective and miss things or take them for granted, things that a broader view would consider important.

Since Mary passed the Illinois written drivers test plus the driving test just a few months before being declared incompetent and thus being made a Ward of the Court, I can’t help but wonder what other similar anomalies go along with her case. For instance, what would be the typical events in the life of someone who actually had significant dementia? The driver’s license issue begs the question of what else is out there that the Friends and Family of Mary Sykes (FFMS) have gotten so used to that these other keys points have been ignored, lost in the forest.

Some examples: If the Sykes case was a legitimate Plenary Guardianship based on significant dementia ——-

REGULAR REPORTING ON HEALTH OF WARD: In other Probate cases I and Gloria have sat through, the Plenary Guardian (PG), the GAL, and family members regularly report on the health and wellbeing of the Ward of the Court. Usually, this is in some detail, occasionally in strict medical terms plus medical reports that are entered into the record.

For Mary Sykes, an abbreviated, very generalized and short discussion is used, which varies from “….she is doing wonderfully..”, to “….she has taken a turn for the worst….” — all without details, without prior reporting to other family members and without written medical statements put into the record.

FAMILY ACCESS TO THE COURT: In other cases, family members gather at the bench, tell their relevant stories on the condition of the Ward, often at length while the lawyers just give important but usually concise information.

For Mary Sykes, Mary is discussed minimally or not at all.

DUTIES OF GUARDIANS: I would bet that most Wards of the Court have friends and family that are encouraged by the Court to visit the Ward and foster independence and wellbeing. Those concepts are included in “Guidelines for Guardians” as put out by the Presiding Judge of Probate Court. Gloria and I have watched Judge Stuart go to noticeable and even poignant lengths on the proper treatment of the Ward and the Duties of the Plenary Guardian.

The exception is Mary Sykes. Has the Plenary Guardian ever met the Judge? Isn’t a report required every 12 months on the health, wellbeing and financial condition of the Ward?  Given all the hearings, would most Judges make a point of meeting the Plenary Guardian?

CONTINUING CONFIRMATION OF NEED OF 24/7 CARE. If the need for 24/7 care was what made the Plenary Guardianship necessary in the first place, shouldn’t that be reported on regularly and supported in detail?  [On May 11, I watched Judge Stuart give strict instructions to a new Plenary Guardian that follow-up reports on the condition of the Ward CANNOT say, “…same as before…or… no change….” The condition must be spelled out in each report.]

For Mary Sykes, what gets used are short, glib statements by three lawyers ( I use that term loosely) who  have a glaring and roughly 6 figure conflict of interest.

SOCIAL CONTACT: For persons suffering from dementia, contact with old friends and family members would be part of their ‘prescription’ for wellbeing.  [On May 11, 2012, Judge Stuart read to two new Plenary Guardians from the guidelines for guardians and emphasized that the duty of a guardian includes helping the Ward of the Court to achieve, “…maximum self-reliance and independence….within limits of safety….”

For Mary Sykes, isolation, minimal to zero self-reliance, total and enforced DEPENDENCE on the Guardian,  including forced isolation such as not being allowed to use the phone to make or even receive calls except for special occasions, about twice a year , is considered by her Plenary Guardian and her two GALS as what is ‘best’ for Mary’s wellbeing.  Of course as we all know, it is only best for the ease of looting Mary’s hard-earned financial assets, the entire purpose of the Guardianship in the first place.  The ‘lawyers’ who practice this type of ‘law’ refer to it as, “churning the estate”.   It is their business plan to transfer an elder’s money to their own pockets.

WISE USE OF FINANCIAL ASSETS: For most dementia suffers, careful husbanding of the financial assets is carefully prescribed by the Court. I have seen it discussed in detail while sitting through other probate cases.

For Mary Sykes, the lawyers (that keep Mary in the situation she clearly has stated she does not want be in) have openly complained that they haven’t been paid. Clearly, the sale of Mary’s house is to pay the people (I use that term loosely) that are responsible for Mary losing her Constitutional rights as opposed to being sold for Mary’s future care.

In fact it can be argued that if Mary actually did suffer from Plenary Guardianship levels of dementia, she would have been treated far better. And since the FFMS know Mary does not have significant dementia, it is overlooked because it is a false accusation. However, the result of knowing that truth has been to inadvertently allow the alleged criminals (sorry Ken, “miscreants” is just too much of a euphemism) to carry on to approach their self-centered financial goals. And since we take it for granted that this case is only about Carolyn and her lawyers protecting their own financial windfall and to counter Carolyn being cut out of half of Mary’s Will/trust, if not all of it, as of June through September 2009, the tendency has been to get caught up in the ‘crisis du jur’ and not concentrate on the basics, the merits of the case. There is no finger pointing here; this is just how these things work out sometimes in any endeavor.

Until an incident like the driver’s license issue acts as a reminder, the broader picture gets lost in the current events; …the forest for the trees. After all, Tim, initially a year and a half ago, suggested that going back to the beginning was a solution. An April or May, 2009 drivers test would certainly qualify as going back to basics.

As far as dealing with dementia of an elder family member goes, I have no background in that. My paternal grandparents died early, my maternal grandparents and great grandparents were in fine mental shape up to their passing.  So, please modify or add to the above examples of standard treatment and actions concerning a Ward of the Court versus the “special” actions surrounding Mary.

I suspect there are many relevant issues similar to the driver’s license issue that could be added to it. I assume that putting them into play at the same time is better than doing it piecemeal.

~Scott
 

Dear Readers;

One of the things that bothers me in a most major respect is how Ken Ditkowsky can be accused of lying about the Sykes Probate Case when in fact Ms. Black at the ARDC has shown no knowledge of the facts of the case.  It makes it look like she was “told to” file a complaint against KD without any facts before her.

Now, as an “ordinary” licensed lawyer, I would get in big trouble for that.  No, let me correct that, HUGE HUGE trouble for that.  In federal court they have Rule 11 where you can be sanctioned if you do not first make a reasonable investigation of the facts or the BS your client has told you.  In state court, it is a different rule, but nonetheless, an important rule.  Believe it or not, lawyers cannot actually file claims and lawsuits just based upon pure client BS.

So what is Ms. Black up to and why is my question to her.  She admitted in her answers to KD’s Requests to Admit that she did not have sufficient facts really to determine if many of the statements made in her complaint against him were true or untrue.

So, the intrigue continues.  I have told her KD is telling the truth.  I know the family and I know Gloria.  The Probate Proceeding was non jurisdictional and railroaded.  What happened?

so please read on below and I will in fact publish all those transcripts on this blog and post a page with links.

take care

joanne

FAX TRANSMITTAL SHEET
To:
ARDC
Attn:Lea Black
Fax 312-565-2320    From:                      Admitted Ill., N.  Carolina and Patent Bars
JoAnne M. Denison, Pat.      Atty.  Reg.  No.  34,150
DENISON & ASSOCS., PC    FAX 312-553-1307
1512 N Fremont St, #202    CELL PH 773-255-7608
CHICAGO, IL 60642    PHONE 312-553-1300
JoAnne@DenisonLaw.com  or http://www.DenisonLaw.com
Federal Patents, Trademarks & Copyrights
Marianne Buckley, Associate, Of Counsel
Troy Sieburg, Associate, Of Counsel
Important Notice
This facsimilie message contains attorney privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above.  If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone, collect, and return the original message to the above address.  You will be reimbursed.  Your cooperation is immensely appreciated.
For transmission problems, please call 312-335-1300
A confirmation copy       WILL   ✔   will NOT be sent.
Pages in fax, including this coversheet – ( 2 + 4 PDF files to come  )
May 10, 2012

Re:     JoAnne M. Denison ,  In relation to Cynthia Farenga’s Complaint AND
Kenneth Ditkowsky, the Sykes Probate matter
PLUS my request to open an investigation against Cynthia Farenga, Peter Schmeidel, Adam Stern, Harvey Waller
TRANSMISSION OF TRANSCRIPTS

Dear Ms. Black;

Without waiving my representation by Mr. Ditkowsky, who is aware of this communication, attached is are portions of the Probate File transcripts which have been imaged–as promised  You will eventually get 16 files, and I have just ordered the rest to get to you.  You should already have the following documents via fax for the above files:
1.  Table of Torts for April 2012, which I will periodically update.
2.  Probate file (imaged portion) Dec 1 2011 to April 1 2012 which contains the improper behavior of Peter Schmeidel, Adam Stern and Cynthia Farenga which has occurred in Probate Court.  It supplements the “table of torts” which serve as a basis of complaints against these individuals.
3.  Probate file (imaged portion) Mar 2011 to Nov 2011, faxed May 8, 2012.

If you lose or misplace any of the above, these can be easily located at http://www.MaryGSykes.com.  While I do not think 99% of ARDC complaints need to or ought to be made public, I am 100% sure that Probate Case No. 2009 P 4585 involving AS, CF, PS and HW is so filled with grave injustices against Mary G and Gloria, the entire matter MUST and OUGHT to be published.

Unless and until I have heard that this has been accomplished, I will work on getting the feds involved, or the court corruption attorney prosecutors located at 219 S. Dearborn in Chicago.  I had to do this once before in Probate and once I shipped over a packet of info, the craziness in court all of a sudden stopped.  I guess a phone call was made.  That was a great story I will save for another day.

I also wanted to let you know the other day I was in FED Court or Forcible Eviction and Detainer Court.  (True story). This is on the 14th floor.  I can tell you that I have been in this court for clients a number of times and seen dozens of cases dismissed for lack of proper jurisdictional notice over those 5 day notes.  Yesterday, regrettably I had to dismiss my client’s case.  I didn’t want to waste his time or money.  Unfortunately, my client had a prior lawyer and this lawyer was told that the eviction case involved a land contract or an agreement to purchase the property within a certain time period.  For some reason, the lawyer had my client serve a 5 day notice to the tenant as if the tenancy were on a month to month basis.  When we received the file and noted that both parties agreed in answers to discovery that this was in fact a land contract arrangement, I had to inform the client that the law was in land contract situations (there is a separate set of laws for these apart from the Chicago Landlord Tenant Ordinance), that a 30 day notice had to be served.  Yesterday I had to agree to a non suit.

Oh, I talked to the judge about it, told him the 5 day was served in good faith, etc., but he was firm that a jurisdictional notice requirement was strict and severe and required dismissal and he could not take any action on the subject matter of the case.  I understand.  It’s due process and it’s constitutional.  The Illinois Supreme Court has made that clear.  There are two cases on this.  Read the language I have outlined. (will fax later today) Due process and notice jurisdiction is strict and severe.

I don’t like “jurisdictional notice requirements” in Illinois laws either when I have to withdraw or have one of my cases dismissed and start all over again.  This means if you don’t strictly comply with the form, content, and method of notice, the court may not take jurisdiction over a matter.  All orders will be void ab initio.  All lawyers involved may incur serious liability, malpractice or otherwise.  You get in the middle of the case, do discovery and find out jurisdiction is lacking and an honest lawyer informs the court promptly and asks for a dismissal.  I had to do just that yesterday.  BUT, they are important due process and constitutional protections afforded citizens with human and civil rights.  And in the long run, what makes the US great is our extreme attention and compelling dedication to the protection of human and civil rights, meaning all due process protections are highly regarded.

For some reason, the FED judges on the 14th floor understand this concept, generally carefully reviewing each and every new case to make sure the 5 day notice was correct and was served strictly in compliance with the statue.  But, then just four floors above in the Probate division, the judges there for some reason ignore all of it–due process, proper 14 day service on close family members and do as they please.

Soldini was clear that 14 day notice requirement prior to hearing is jurisdictional.  It cannot be waived and the case should and MUST be dismissed at anytime this issue is brought to the attention of the judge.

What is happening here?  KD believes that such a serious violation where both 2 Probate judges and 2 GAL’s and 2 Illinois licensed attorneys are involved and everyone ignores jurisdictional notice requirement of 14 day prior notice to a hearing to Gloria and the sisters Yolanda and Josephine, especially when combined with 1) family members reporting and insisting Mary G wants an attorney; 2) Mary G asking Gloria to find KD who is her desired attorney and he is not allowed to intervene (Gloria did NOT know that name before that conversation–she got it from her mom); 3)the GAL’s say Mary waived her right to an attorney; 4) the GAL’s say Gloria “consented” to an agreement to appoint a guardian, etc. and the rest of the funny stuff in the case (see my Table of Torts), the entire case looks like the old days of Greylord.

Worst part about it is the case has gone on now for 2 years.  Two years and we have 6+ bar admitted Illinois lawyers spend time, resources and estate money, holding an 93 year old woman in a place she has not chosen–all because these 6 lawyers (2 judges, 2 GAL’s and 2+ lawyers for the estate), don’t get the onerous and most serious burden of jurisdictional notice.

And this is a serious continuing violation.  Every day this case goes on, the limitations period is NOT tolled for any of this tortious ultra vires behavior that began in July of 2009.  Day by day, each of the lawyers involved that continue marching forward incur more and more liability for themselves and the estate.  None of them can apparently pound their ego down (as I demonstrated yesterday that I can) and admit that the entire Sykes matter is without jurisdiction, nonsuit it, let Mary G go home, let Gloria go home, give Gloria back her Indiana frozen funds and start the case all over.

Look at the FED cases.  After 2 years of litigation, a long and winding decision about how the RLTO should be interpreted regarding numerous violations the parties protractedly argued about one short sentence at the end said it all–the 5 day notice was only served by slipping it under the door and therefore we MUST vacate the landord’s judgment AND dismiss because the Circuit Court had no jurisdiction ab initio.

Two years of protracted, heated litigation down the drain.  Two years.  And in the end, due process won.  The constitutional rights of Illinois and US citizens won.  These documents are not just scholastic torture for the 6th grade kiddies–they are important legal documents that should control the behavior of the courts instead of the other way round.

No notice means no jurisdiction. The only way around this is to get a signed waiver of the jurisdictional notice, and neither Gloria nor the sisters Yolanda nor Josephine have signed such a document or told the court that on a transcript record (you will be receiving each and every one of these–you find the consent).  Every one agrees on that.

KD is right to call for an investigation.  That was and is his constitutional right.

He has recently transmitted to me additional law on this issue and I will provide you with a memoranda, but from what I’ve seen so far, the constitutional right to protect free public speech bearing upon public issues is a “special” protected right of the highest demand for absolutely no protections.

So then, why is this happening in the Sykes case, and why is there anything wrong with Ken Ditkowsky calling repeatedly for an investigation.  He is old enough to recall the problems involved in obtaining justice during the Greylord years.  I was admitted the year Greylord was over and 90% of the Daley Center was cleared of its corrupt judges.  I had heard corruption was so bad, the attorneys were openly handing envelopes stuff with cash right over the bench and saying “Merry Christmas” to these judges.  And it was not once in a while, but for years, and the ARDC sat by and did nothing, even with a barrage of complaints from the public and other honest lawyers.

Since I have gotten to know KD he is one of the most honest, caring lawyers that I have met.  He has bent over backwards many times to help Mary and Gloria obtain justice.  Why pursue him?

Gloria says she was involved in the Gacy case and apparently the CPS knew young boys were disappearing from their classrooms and did nothing.  She was one of the first investigative reporters on the case right after Gacy was arrested.  The CPS did not promptly inform parents there was an apparent pattern.  They did not inform the authorities so perhaps a dozen or more boys died needlessly.

I know that no one likes to think our courtrooms are wired, or that the authorities ignore the elephant in the room, but it’s people like KD and myself and Gloria that are outraged at such conduct.  We are vociferous and will be vociferous, and if those loud protestations wind up in a blog on the internet because the courts are wired and none of 6+ lawyers involved in that case simply “don’t get it”, and the ARDC turns a blind eye and deaf ear, then so be it.  That’s what we will all do.  And we are NOT going away, even after numerous 1983 violations, CPA violations, etc. We will still be on the internet’s door protesting so the public knows what the govt is spending money on–deny human rights.

Look at the Probate file, see what Gloria is repeatedly filing to protest her becoming homeless and penniless due to the behavior of the above miscreants–and worst of all, denying her of her beloved companionship of her elderly mother.  She is right.

Thank you for your consideration and prompt cooperation in this matter.

Very Truly Yours,

DENISON & ASSOCS, PC

Joanne M. Denison

PS–I think it is just easier for you to get the PDF files by email, but you said I could not email you anything yet on this case so I am faxing it to be sure I have a return receipt.

PPS–if you are doing a lot of paper faxing, I have found efax.com where you just get PDF files in your email is much better for longer faxes and I get people to use that.  And I don’t have to worry about anything sitting unattended on the fax machine.

Cc: Ken Ditkowsky, via email

First of all, the links to the documents where everyone can see the case on Google Docts (Gddss bless Google Docts!)

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwRnlBTGUyWjVwSE0

If link breaks:    https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwRnlBTGUyWjVwSE0

File No. 2 (cut and paste)

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwVUNnMEs1M1RFSHc

File No. 3 (cut and paste)

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwMFBEYmJCVmJrSlk

File No. 4 (cut and paste)

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwYUpSekZ4TkZocjg

Dear Readers:

As you are aware, I have promised to publish the court records and transcripts (not all hearings were transcribed) and get these to the ARDC so that they can see how the Probate Court has consistently ignored Gloria’s pleas for justice and relief.  Other than Carolyn, the plenary guardian, the rest of the Sykes family is not in disagreement on the issues in this case. Mary G’s sisters, other close family and friends all believe Gloria was doing an admirable job taking care of her mom for 10+ years.  But the Probate Court does not like that. How can AS and CF then churn fees when the family is happy? How can Carolyn do a money grab for Mary G’s bank accounts and the cash and gold coins at the home? Gloria was supporting her mother and keeping her in her home, well fed, well dressed.  Mary G walked to the bank several times per week and even walked 4 blocks to see her favorite doctor, Dr. Patel,who was keeping her in excellent health at age 90.  She passed her driver’s exam in Jan of 2009– six months before she was declared “incompetent” by Dr. Motckya.  There are videos on the internet that show this “incompetent” woman knows what she wants? Now she is 93.

Isn’t this the least bit scary to any of you that an estranged relative can barge into your life, loot your million dollar nest egg, wire the court and gain control when six months before it is undisputed you walked to and from your doctor and bank, you wrote checks–you even passed a written driver’s exam?

See the fax below.  Amazingly not all of it went thru because someone kept “answering the phone”. Since Lea Black at the ARDC won’t let me email these files, I have to fax them.

There’s about 400 pages of court docts so far on the court’s imaging system.  There’s about a carton of docts in the file. Although, I think I generated about 3 reams myself when I was involved with the case, and I plan on getting those docts to LB too.

Let’s see what happens.  I have no idea how the ARDC can make an informed decision on this case if LB doesn’t have the Probate file, entire transcripts (I have about 16 and there are more coming).

JoAnne Marie

Now for the Fax to Lea Black an atty at the ARDC

FAX TRANSMITTAL SHEET
To:
ARDC
Attn:Lea Black
Fax 312-565-2320    From:                      Admitted Ill., N.  Carolina and Patent Bars
JoAnne M. Denison, Pat.      Atty.  Reg.  No.  34,150
DENISON & ASSOCS., PC    FAX 312-553-1307
1512 N Fremont St, #202    CELL PH 773-255-7608
CHICAGO, IL 60642    PHONE 312-553-1300
JoAnne@DenisonLaw.com  or http://www.DenisonLaw.com
Federal Patents, Trademarks & Copyrights
Marianne Buckley, Associate, Of Counsel
Troy Sieburg, Associate, Of Counsel
Important Notice
This facsimilie message contains attorney privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above.  If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone, collect, and return the original message to the above address.  You will be reimbursed.  Your cooperation is immensely appreciated.
For transmission problems, please call 312-335-1300
A confirmation copy       WILL   ✔   will NOT be sent.
Pages in fax, including this coversheet – ( 2 + 4 PDF files to come  )
May 8, 2012

Re: JoAnne M. Denison ,  In relation to Cynthia Farenga’s Complaint AND
Kenneth Ditkowsky, the Sykes Probate matter
PLUS my request to open an investigation against Cynthia Farenga, Peter Schmeidel, Adam Stern, Harvey Waller
TRANSMISSION OF PROBATE FILE MAR 2011 TO DEC 2011

Dear Ms. Black;

Without waiving my representation by Mr. Ditkowsky, who is aware of this communication, attached is are portions of the Probate File which have been imaged.  You should already have the following documents via fax for the above files:
1.  Table of Torts for April 2012, which I will periodically update.
2.  Probate file (imaged portion) Dec 1 2011 to April 1 2012 which contains the improper behavior of Peter Schmeidel, Adam Stern and Cynthia Farenga which has occurred in Probate Court.  It supplements the “table of torts” which serve as a basis of complaints against these individuals.
3.  Probate file (imaged portion) Mar 2011 to Nov 2011, faxed May 8, 2012.

If you lose or misplace any of the above, these can be easily located at http://www.MaryGSykes.com.  While I do not think 99% of ARDC complaints need to or ought to be made public, I am 100% sure that Probate Case No. 2009 P 4585 involving AS, CF, PS and HW is so filled with grave injustices against Mary G and Gloria, the entire matter MUST and OUGHT to be published.

Unless and until I have heard that this has been accomplished, I will work on getting the feds involved, or the court corruption attorney prosecutors located at 219 S. Dearborn in Chicago.  I had to do this once before in Probate and once I shipped over a packet of info, the craziness in court all of a sudden stopped.  I guess a phone call was made.  That was a great story I will save for another day.

Thank you for your consideration and prompt cooperation in this matter.

Very Truly Yours,

DENISON & ASSOCS, PC

Joanne M. Denison

PS–I think it is just easier for you to get the PDF files by email, but you said I could not email you anything yet on this case so I am faxing it to be sure I have a return receipt.

PPS–if you are doing a lot of paper faxing, I have found efax.com where you just get PDF files in your email is much better for longer faxes and I get people to use that.  And I don’t have to worry about anything sitting unattended on the fax machine.

Cc: Ken Ditkowsky, via email

Okay and here’s someting funny.  I faxed LB about 200 pages and they started picking up the phone at the ARDC to stop the fax!  LB told me she does not do emails regarding complaints, but in order to make a fully informed decision, she should have the entire probate file, all the transcripts, etc. — one would think!  I know as an atty if I got involved in all of this,  would want that and demand it before making a decision. But then they pick up the phone at the ARDC to stop your fax and they say “no emails.”

Do they really want all the truth?  I’ll check it out later today, see if LB calls about all the docts and let you all know.

Take care, and peace and blessing and justice to you all today

JoAnne Marie D.

From: GLD <gailwinds2hi@yahoo.com>
To: ‘kenneth ditkowsky’ <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>; ‘probate sharks’ <verenusl@gmail.com>; ‘GLORIA Jean SYKES’ <gloami@msn.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 1, 2012 9:50 PM
Subject: Illinois Guardianship and Advocacy Commission

Created in 1979, the Illinois Guardianship and Advocacy Commission protects the rights and promotes the welfare of persons with disabilities.  A board of eleven Commissioners, who serve without compensation, govern the agency. The Commission is an executive state agency created to safeguard the rights of persons with disabilities. By providing legal representation, investigating complaints of rights violations and providing state guardianship for Illinois’ population with disabilities, the Commission has given voice to those who have previously gone unheard.

Three program Divisions in nine regions throughout the State carry out the responsibilities of the Commission:

       Office of State Guardian (OSG) : Appointed by the courts as a guardian of last resort, the OSG provides case services and money management to more than 5,400 persons with disabilities.

       Legal Advocacy Service (LAS) : LAS represents persons with disabilities at commitment hearings and makes counsel available to enforce the rights of those with disabilities under the Illinois Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Code and other related laws.

       Human Rights Authority (HRA) : With the assistance of a team of volunteers, the HRA conducts investigations of alleged rights violations by providers against people with disabilities.  Additionally, this program area works closely with providers to help resolve rights issues

Highlights

The Human Rights Authority exists to conduct investigations of complaints of violations of the rights of persons with disabilities. Based on early models of a singular regional grassroots program, the Human Rights Authority serves as a statewide framework providing direction and standards for a largely volunteer effort.

http://gac.state.il.us/hra/