You go, Gloria!

Subject: RE: ARDC Lea Black — Subpoena deposition for Gloria Jean Sykes–please cross post!

From Ken Ditkowsky:

Yesterday I re-read the ARDC complaint that was filed concerning my protests and communications in regard to Adam Stern, Cynthia Farenga and the miscreants who acted under color of statute to deprive Mary Sykes of her liberty, property, civil rights and human rights.   The action taken is not even subtle.   It is a heavy handed attempt to shut me up.  My protest and exercise of my First Amendment Rights are particularly unpleasant to Mr. Stern, Ms. Farenga and those aiding and abetting their conduct.   I mentioned the fact that the breach of a fiduciary relationship is a ‘taxable event!’   When Stern, Farenga et al concealed the isolation and abuse of Mary Sykes by not filing reports to the Court of such conduct and instead defamated and castigated Gloria Sykes and those who protested they breached their fiduciary relationships to Mary Sykes.    When the plenary guardian drilled the safety deposit box and removed from it a large number of double eagle gold coins and other valuables and did not inventory the same it was not only a breach of fiduciary relationship but ‘theft!’    If the Federal and STate Income taxes have not been paid – that is tax evasion and possibly tax fraud.

As this has been now disclosed and made public we have called for an honest, comprehensive and complete investigation.   There is no just reason for Mary Sykes (aged 93) to be denied her civil rights and there is no reason why those persons who benefited by the non-inventory of the very valuable double eagle gold coins (worth about $3000 each) should not pay the Federal and State of Illinois taxes on the collectibles.

My continued mention of the fact that usually non-inventoried valuables in the possession of a guardian are not reported as income by the fiduciary has generated personal attacks on me from not only the two guardian ad litem, the plenary guardian and her attorneys, but now the ARDC.   Indeed, the fact that I undertook an investigation is the sole complaint against me.   I am also defending an attorney who is being investigated upon similar charges.  My defense to the Gulag is the First Amendment.    The following quote is particularly appropriate:

Like freedom of speech and a free press, the right of peaceable assembly was considered by the Framers of our Constitution to lie at the foundation of a government *523 based upon the consent of an informed citizenry-a government dedicated to the establishment of justice and the preservation of liberty. U.S.Const., Amend. I. And it is now beyond dispute that freedom of association for the purpose of advancing ideas and airing grievances is protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from invasion by the States. De Jonge v. State of Oregon, 299 U.S. 353, 364, 57 S.Ct. 255, 259, 81 L.Ed. 278; N.A.A.C.P. v. State of Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 460, 78 S.Ct. 1163, 1170, 2 L.Ed.2d 1488.
3 Freedoms such as these are protected not only against heavy-handed frontal attack, but also from being stifled by more subtle governmental interference. Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 56 S.Ct. 444, 80 L.Ed. 660; Murdock v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, 63 S.Ct. 870, 87 L.Ed. 1292; American Communications Ass’n, C.I.O. v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382, 402, 70 S.Ct. 674, 685, 94 L.Ed. 925;

Bates v. City of Little Rock, 361 U.S. 516, 522-23, 80 S. Ct. 412, 416, 4 L. Ed. 2d 480 (1960)

Last week there was a protest outside a courtroom near Riverside California instituted by a group of persons protesting similar elder abuse and financial exploitation of senior citizens.   I understand that the Media blackout and political censorship of this ‘dirty little secret’ continues just as in a past decade the Gulag florished in Soviet Russia.   I hope that in the year 2012 the 4th of July celebration is all form and no substance.

Ken Ditkowsky
http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/
In response to Gloria’s reply yesterday:

Gloria –

I was just having the very same thought.    Rudy Bush wrote me and I remembered the situation with his mother and how her death was handled.

The League of Women Votes had a slogan – “democracy is not a spectator sport!”   Indeed, it is not and while we were complacent our democracy was hijacked!   Instead of protections for ‘grandma’ we have a gulag!    The Supreme Court decision of Buck vs. Bell was the legal precedent for the Holocaust.    Today we are more subtle however, like the National Socialists and the Communists we surround our miscreat behavior with Judicial CYA.    The distinction between the Sykes case and most of the others is the fact that because no one bothered to follow strictly the statute and provide the appropriate Sodini protections – i.e. naming in the petition the close relatives and giving them 14 days notice prior to the hearing to appoint a guardian the Probate Court lacked jurisdiction and the expropriation of approximately a million dollars of your mother’s (and your) assets lacks ‘judicial cover!’    In my opinion it is pure theft and if law enforcement believes in equal protection we will see some people in jail.   If our Federal Government is serious about enforcing taxes on an equal and equitable basis the unreported ‘income’ will be collected from the guardians (plus every penalty and interest due and payable).

We have only ourselves to blame!   We have the ballot but *****.    We have a right of assembly and free speech (except for me in the opinion of the ARDC).   Democracy is not a spectator sport!

From JoAnne:

What do the courts have to say about the First Amendment:

102 S.Ct. 929
Supreme Court of the United States
In re R. M. J., Appellant.
No. 80-1431. | Argued Nov. 9, 1981. | Decided Jan. 25, 1982.
Disbarment proceedings were instituted against attorney. The Missouri Supreme Court, 609 S.W.2d 411, issued a private reprimand. Appeal was taken. The Supreme Court, Justice Powell, held that the provisions of the Missouri Supreme Court rule regulating lawyer advertising which prohibit deviating from a precise listing of areas of practice included in the advisory committee addendum to the rule, which prohibit a lawyer from identifying the jurisdictions in which he is licensed to practice and which prohibit the mailing of cards announcing the opening of an office to persons other than “lawyers, clients, former clients, personal friends and relatives” violate the First Amendment where there was no showing that the advertising was misleading or that the mailings and handbills would be more difficult to supervise.
Judgment reversed.

Most notable quotes from this case:

Truthful advertising related to lawful activities is entitled to protections of First Amendment. U.S.C.A.Const.Amends. 1, 14.
Although potential for deception and confusion is particularly strong in context of advertising professional services, restrictions upon such advertising may be no broader than reasonably necessary to prevent deception. U.S.C.A.Const.Amends. 1, 14.
Under commercial speech doctrine, states may not place absolute prohibition on certain types of potentially misleading information if information may be presented in way that is not deceptive. U.S.C.A.Const.Amends. 1, 14.
Even when communication is not misleading, state retains some authority to regulate; but state must assert substantial interest and interference with speech must be in proportion to interest served. U.S.C.A.Const.Amends. 1, 14.
In regulating communication which is not misleading, restrictions must be narrowly drawn and state lawfully may regulate only to extent regulation furthers state’s substantial interest. U.S.C.A.Const.Amends. 1, 14
Restriction prohibiting attorney from mailing cards announcing opening of his office to persons other than “lawyers, clients, former clients, personal friends and relatives” violated First Amendment without indication that inability to supervise mailings and handbills was reason state restricted potential audience of announcement cards, nor was it clear that absolute prohibition was the only solution. V.A.M.R. 4, Code of Prof.Resp., DR2-102(A)(2); U.S.C.A.Const.Amends. 1,
Although states may regulate commercial speech, First and Fourteenth Amendments require that they do so with care and in manner no more extensive than reasonably necessary for their substantial interests. U.S.C.A.Const.Amends. 1,

Dear Readers;

The following is the probate file for 09 P 4585 between May1 and May 13, 2009:

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwZG02MkVITlpVcms

cut and paste this if link does not work:

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwZG02MkVITlpVcms

In any case, there is an accounting filed by CT for 2011 and there is also an Amended Petition for Partition.  I have not seen Gloria’s response to this, but there is no briefing schedule, so she has a few more days to prepare this.

With respect to the accounting, it looks fine except it is not explained why Hannah is so sickly and has $1000 in vet bills.  She is a young, healthy dog.  Her sister, Peanut, whom I have, is in perfect health and I think cost me about $70 in vet bills for just a check up last year.  Did anyone see this and wonder why Carolyn can’t take care of a simple 10 lb Pekingese, how can she take care of elderly Mary G?

Interesting.

Further, the mortgage payment doubled and that was not explained.  What’s up with that?

She also needs to revamp and refile her Motion to Dismiss or Non Suit for lack of jurisdiction.  I saw one in the file at one time. I will be finding that and redoing it for her next court appearance.  I have prepared declarations for Aunt Yolanda and Aunt Josephine and published them here and sent them off, but have heard nothing back.  All those declarations are necessary for 1) the Probate Court, 2) Gloria’s cases, most notable now the partition that will strip her of her brown house; 3) Ken’s ARDC complaint, 4) My ARDC complaint and a whole host of other reasons.

I’m hoping to get this all done soon so that justice may prevail and we can all go home soon!  Yeah!

JoAnne

see below.

please cut and paste link if it does not work in your browser.

Yolanda

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwSzNuZUpDR1ExMHc

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwSzNuZUpDR1ExMHc

Second declaration–Josephine:

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwM2ZTVHNQOFZDOFU

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwM2ZTVHNQOFZDOFU

Now, if Ken wants to ‘CALL FOR AN INVESTIGATION” and ask the GAL’s to inform the court regarding these declarations, it’s a whole new ballgame.

A Guardian ad Litem, doing her job properly, would immediately, upon seeing Gloria’s documents in the file, or having been served with them, brought them to the court’s attention and start an investigation.

But see my “Table of Torts”.  TEN PAGES of questionable behavior, corruption, misfeasance, malfeasance, perpetration of misdemeansors and felonies have occurred in this case and law enforcement and even the ARDC have swept it under the rug.   Okay, maybe Atty Lea Black does not do this law and she needs help in this area, but the table of torts that I sent her should have raised some huge, huge red flags, even to the casual observer.

I’m not the one that should be scouring the files and preparing these declarations–she should be, or her staff.

The probate court is upside down right now (see attached picture), and I just wonder if the ARDC isn’t just standing on its head so the view looks good and proper to them.

Is this our Probate Court on the the 18th Floor? Should there be signage when you get off the elevator at floor 18 “Welcome to Wonderwerks?”

Ms. Black, YOU have the ability to change all of this.  I know you can do it and let justice prevail.

Dear Readers;

Now that I have had some time to go back and read transcripts and look over the my computer files (yes, I do have practically all the court orders and documents in my records, so this is a QED, AND I do plan on making those computer files consisting of filed and unfiled pleadings, court orders, court transcripts, etc. complete so Gloria can pursue her claims against the miscreants).

As a result of that and the upcoming July 6, 2012 Hearing on Motion to Partition, I have drafted the below affidavits and will fax them to Lea Black at the ARDC.

Now it is my understand (from a little bird), that Josephine “might be reluctant to sign” because apparently she “took the wrong side” and is allowed to see her sister every couple of months and call her a couple times per month.  What?  Gloria gave Mary parties all the time and included her in EVERYTHING.  Her mom called her sisters all the time.

The most disturbing part of this comment is that it is clearly obstruction of justice and a further breach by the GAL’s of their duty to report to a court fairly and impartially on matters concerning the disabled person.

I, myself, cringe at hearing such comments being made out of the mouth of an Officer of the Court.  Disgusting.

When this situation occurs, I will let Ms. Black know and to put in her cover letter to the sisters that it is their important civic duty to come forward and present court testimony (an affidavit is used as an important precursor to court testimony, it allows the parties, their attys and the court to determine if the witness has something worthwhile to say or not), and inform the court fully of the truth before it.  It is similar to jury duty, an important and cherished civic right, but perhaps signing that affidavit might be even more important.

Ms. Black should further know these witnesses have been tampered with by the GAL’s.

JoAnne

From Ken Ditkowsky today:

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Jun 25, 2012 7:56 AM

Subject: Re: Request for Information on Incidents of The Use of Chemical Restraints on the Elderly and/or Disabled– from latifa . ring@comcast.net–she is looking for persons experienced with the drugging of elders to put them in nursing homes, keep them from family.  Generally these drugs are prescribed by physicians upon a complaint the elder is unruly and agitated.  Often this agitation occurs when they are put in a nursing home, personal effects and homes are sold–all to generate fees from lawyers, CPA’s and others that put them there.  The worst thing about it is that often these psychotropic drugs (Seroquel, Risperodol, etc.) are hard on the internal organs–heart, liver, kidneys, etc., and over time cause them to fail resulting in the death of the elder. An elder that would be perfectly fine in her own home, without money grubbing miscreants.

From Ken Ditkowsky

Dear Readers;

Okay, you know I just couldn’t resist a responsive fax to Judge Evans, so here it is:

FAX TRANSMITTAL SHEET
To: Hon Presiding
Judge Timothy Evans
Circuit Court Cook County

Fax: 312-603-5366
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
Troy Sieburg, associate, of counsel
Marianne Buckley, 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 312-553-1300
A confirmation copy       WILL   ✔   will NOT be sent.
Pages in fax, including this coversheet – ( 1  )
June 23, 2012

Re: Seizure of attorney laptops in Probate court

Dear Judge Evans;

I am in receipt of your cursory letter sent my snail mail to my offices.

However, snail mail is very costly to the taxpayers and emails and efax are much more efficient and I strongly encourage you to use those.  I promise you I will respond promptly to all communications, generally in a day or two, so do not worry about non receipt of mail.

Further, the USPS readily admits from studies that are decades old and extremely consistent, that only 95% of snail mail reaches its destination in 5 days!  I think email easily beats that statistic hands down.

As you may or may not know, this issue is part of a much larger issue going on in the Probate Court right now and we have a very active blog on all aspects of a case which is extremely contentious and appears to be the center of substantial corruption and wiring.

Discussions among the attys that are helping out the client pro bono are lively and active.

The seizure of the laptop has become part of those discussions, and one of the attys on the blog is extremely active and eloquently outspoken, so I thought perhaps you might enjoy his comments.  Below is the post for today, of which you are a subject.

Ken Ditkowsky says that Judge Timothy Evans sent me a bug letter
Posted on June 23, 2012

Dear Readers;

As you well know, last December 2011 my laptop was seized when Adam Stern whined to Judge Connors that I was blogging (soon the transcripts will appear on the first page of this blog, I am working on that), So finally, finally I got a response from Cook County presiding judge Timothy Evans after 3 faxes and waiting about 2 weeks. (I guess he has no law clerks or staff).

in any case, see below:
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwQVh3bm5fbWU3VkE (cut and paste link)

Obviously, the letter says nothing in response to consititutional rights, the ability to best serve your client, etc. but Ken Ditkowsky had an even better anecdote regarding a “bug letter.”

KD’s anecdote:
“Many years ago before the age of computers on every desk, the Illinois Central Railroad ran trains to Southern Illinois. The trains had windows that opened, and sometimes passengers were harassed by insects. On one such trip a traveler was so upset that he wrote to the Chairman of the IC to complain.
In the 40?s and 50?s Banks and large institutions had automatic typewriters – these were typewriters that we very much like player pianos. A secretary would type a master, and then another secretary would fill in the details such as name, address, etc.
Anyhow, our traveler received a letter very similar to what you received, and in the unsophisticated era the personal signature totally mollified him – until he turned the letter over and saw in pencil the words: “send bug letter.”
It is a shame that everyone is watching what appears to be a crime being committed, i.e. a 93 year old lady, kidnapped and robbed and the thieves acting in concert with the judicial system. The Illinois legislature enacted the Sodini protections and made the protections jurisdictional to prevent exactly what has happened in the Sykes case. Now for four years this Gulag has continued in full sight of law enforcement, the highest ranking judicial officials, and the world. Mary Sykes has been totally deprived of her liberty, her property, civil rights and even human rights in full sight. Approximately a million dollars in assets have been illegally sequestered by the thieves who have the temerity to brag in open court of the perfidy! (see Sykes transcripts)
The distinction between Chicago street crime and guardian crime is that the ‘thugs’ are not ‘minority individuals’ not Italian mafia etc. They are ‘clout’ heavy political types who have for many years ‘played’ the system to make their bread at the public expense. By targeting Grandma who they could characterize as senile they are apparently safe as their co-conspirators cover their tracks with CYA letters, intimidation, and deceit! These criminals are just as vicious as the gang member who grabs grandma’s purse and throws her onto the elevated tracks! The only distinction is the the judicial system protects them. Shame, Shame, Shame.
The attached letter from Judge Evans is a symptom of the corruption that gave rise to Watergate, Greylord, Sykes, etc. It is difficult to speak to deaf ears glued onto public officials whose sole aim in life is CYA. Rest assured, at some point in time the right combination of circumstances will occur. How many years did Sandusky prey on male children? How many responsible people watched? What did the public authorities do? How many lives did the SOB ruin?
Why are the public officials who ignored the problem not in the ‘dock?’ Every one of them Aided and abetted the criminal activities while they occurred – each should be independently prosecuted and sent to jail as an Accessory during the fact. Each public official who ignored a complaint letter or other communication had an affirmative duty (parens Patrie) and in ignoring his/her duty assisted in the crime. These elder abuse cases are identical. Today – all the is required of the public officials (who have nothing to hide – those who do should take the fifth) is to demand a complete honest and comprehensive investigation of all the facts of the Sykes case.”
Sigh, now I have to send him a fax saying that his letter was non responsive, I will make the security guy aware of the letter, but the reality is lawyers protect our rights and not security people.  I have yet to see a cop or security officer say, you have important constitutional rights and I want to protect those.  Nope, their mantra is “an arrest a day keeps the sarge away.”
I don’t think the Hon. Timothy Evans  knows that I am serious enough to sue him over this because it is a very important right to be able to take notes in court when needed and to do the best possible job for your client.
So more faxes. I will let you know if I get a real response from him or if I have to go to a federal court district judge to do it.
thanks all.
JoAnne

There were other comments I receive about your letter, but KD”s was clearly the best, hands down.

Kindly let me know if and when you decide to write a responsive letter that protects the rights of attys and their clients in the courtroom, and PULEEZE do not push off YOUR responsibility to “security” who know nothing of these rights, don’t know, don’t care, aren’t being paid to worry about anyone’s rights, and always seem surprised when a lawyer brings up the fact that due process and constitutional rights were supposed to be part of a class and exam passed in 6th grade!

I already had a discuss with the courtroom employees over constitutional rights, and they admitted security personnel knew “nothing about” that (due process and constitutional rights” and they said that was not their job to know these things or evaluate these things.
I agree.

So why are you passing something to a department that knows nothing of these things, readily admits it, and they say they take their direction from the court after the lawyers argue their respective points?

All good questions, but where are the good answers.

Very Truly Yours,

DENISON & ASSOCS, PC

JoAnne Denison

JoAnne M. Denison

cc: http://www.marygsykes.com  And http://www.marygsykes.blogspot.com

cc:

Dear Readers;

As you well know, last December 2011 my laptop was seized when Adam Stern whined to Judge Connors that I was blogging (soon the transcripts will appear on the first page of this blog, I am working on that), So finally, finally I got a response from Cook County presiding judge Timothy Evans after 3 faxes and waiting about 2 weeks. (I guess he has no law clerks or staff).

in any case, see below:

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwQVh3bm5fbWU3VkE (cut and paste link)

Obviously, the letter says nothing in response to consititutional rights, the ability to best serve your client, etc. but Ken Ditkowsky had an even better anecdote regarding a “bug letter.”

KD’s anecdote:

“Many years ago before the age of computers on every desk, the Illinois Central Railroad ran trains to Southern Illinois. The trains had windows that opened, and sometimes passengers were harassed by insects. On one such trip a traveler was so upset that he wrote to the Chairman of the IC to complain.

In the 40’s and 50’s Banks and large institutions had automatic typewriters – these were typewriters that we very much like player pianos. A secretary would type a master, and then another secretary would fill in the details such as name, address, etc.

Anyhow, our traveler received a letter very similar to what you received, and in the unsophisticated era the personal signature totally mollified him – until he turned the letter over and saw in pencil the words: “send bug letter.”
It is a shame that everyone is watching what appears to be a crime being committed, i.e. a 93 year old lady, kidnapped and robbed and the thieves acting in concert with the judicial system. The Illinois legislature enacted the Sodini protections and made the protections jurisdictional to prevent exactly what has happened in the Sykes case. Now for four years this Gulag has continued in full sight of law enforcement, the highest ranking judicial officials, and the world. Mary Sykes has been totally deprived of her liberty, her property, civil rights and even human rights in full sight. Approximately a million dollars in assets have been illegally sequestered by the thieves who have the temerity to brag in open court of the perfidy! (see Sykes transcripts)

The distinction between Chicago street crime and guardian crime is that the ‘thugs’ are not ‘minority individuals’ not Italian mafia etc. They are ‘clout’ heavy political types who have for many years ‘played’ the system to make their bread at the public expense. By targeting Grandma who they could characterize as senile they are apparently safe as their co-conspirators cover their tracks with CYA letters, intimdation, and deceit! These criminals are just as vicious as the gang member who grabs grandma’s purse and throws her onto the elevated tracks! The only distinction is the the judicial system protects them. Shame, Shame, Shame.

The attached letter from Judge Evans is a symptom of the corruption that gave rise to Watergate, Greylord, Sykes, etc. It is difficult to speak to deaf ears glued onto public officials whose sole aim in life is CYA. Rest assured, at some point in time the right combination of circumstances will occur. How many years did Sandusky prey on male children? How many responsible people watched? What did the public authorities do? How many lives did the SOB ruin?

Why are the public officials who ignored the problem not in the ‘dock?’ Every one of them Aided and abetted the criminal activities while they occurred – each should be independently prosecuted and sent to jail as an Accessory during the fact. Each public official who ignored a complaint letter or other communication had an affirmative duty (parens Patrie) and in ignoring his/her duty assisted in the crime. These elder abuse cases are identical. Today – all the is required of the public officials (who have nothing to hide – those who do should take the fifth) is to demand a complete honest and comprehensive investigation of all the facts of the Sykes case.”

Sigh, now I have to send him a fax saying that his letter was non responsive, I will make the security guy aware of the letter, but the reality is lawyers protect our rights and not security people.  I have yet to see a cop or security officer say, you have important constitutional rights and I want to protect those.  Nope, their mantra is “an arrest a day keeps the sarge away.”

I don’t think the Hon. Timothy Evans  knows that I am serious enough to sue him over this because it is a very important right to be able to take notes in court when needed and to do the best possible job for your client.

So more faxes. I will let you know if I get a real response from him or if I have to go to a federal court district judge to do it.

thanks all.

JoAnne

From Ken Ditkowsky:

Sent: Jun 20, 2012 12:32 PM

Subject: elder Abuse

http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/

From JoAnne Denison;

While the GAL’s have repeatedly alleged that KD (and I have seen this erroneously reported on other blogs) state that he allegedly sent a letter to Dr. Patel stating he represented Mary and needed her medical records, I have not seen a copy of that letter anywhere.  It should have been attached to the complaint against KD.  Did the miscreants forge such a letter?  In any case, KD had the authority of Gloria who undoubtedly had the authority of Mary to obtain medical records.  I am certain that Gloria was listed as a person to disclose Mary’s medical information to.

Has the ARDC subpoenaed Dr. Patel for those authorization forms?  I bet not.

I believe that KD received quite a few medical records for Mary from Gloria nonetheless.

All good questions for Ms. Black at the ARDC, since her complaint seems to turn on all of these issues.

JoAnne

Dear Readers;

As some of you might be aware, Lisa Belanger is a lawyer in Mass. who has had her father ripped from her by a number of court appointed and connected “professionals”, namely a greedy CPA and lawyer appointed as conservator for her father–DESPITE the fact her dad was a lawyer, has a substantial estate and named her and her sister in Power of Attorney Documents to care for him, manage his affairs when it came time, and be his conservator.  But the court appointed “friends” of the court–most notably NYC Mellon Bank who hold this estate.

She has filed an appeal of those decisions and we all wish her well.

But she cannot see her father because “that agitates him.”  Of course he is agitated when he cannot see his two beloved daughters and 5 grandchildren and wants to call them several times a day–as he had in the past!  He is told not to call them and he has a fit and physically grabs that phone!  He won’t let anyone stand in the way of calling his beloved daughters, so what do they do?  Physically restrain and drug him–despite the fact he has heart disease and kidney problems and the psychotropic drugs they use are hard on his heart and kidneys!

Now he is drugged and isolated from his daughters and grandchildren.  How abusive is that?  And it is all done under the gloss of authority of the Mass. Probate Court.

Another case of evil and greedy and severe emotional abuse of an elderly senior.

Please pray for Lisa and her sister Devora and the granchildren and the dad.

JoAnne

A TRIBUTE TO:

MY FATHER—

MARVIN H. SIEGEL

MY FATHER TAUGHT ME:

To Live in Hope

To Have Loyalty, Morals

To Have Compassion, Kindness

To be Gentle When Stroked, Fierce When Provoked

To Fight for Justice for Family, for Others

To Not be Silent When People Suffer at the Hands of Others—

To be Heard in Defending Others

To Right the Wrong and To Not Stop Until Won

And to Be Able to Look in the Mirror When the Day is Done

I Miss You–More Than Words Can Ever Say;

Yet, I will Overcome the Obstacles in Our Way—

Because of What You Taught Me

I LOVE YOU,

LISA

by Lisa Belanger for her father on Father’s Day 2012

From Ken Ditkowsky:

From Gloria to Ken Ditkowsky, Esq.
Subject: RE: Affidavit 214

True but at the end of the day Dr. Patel wrote Carolyn Toerpe a letter on June 15, 2009 and was clear that my mother was competent so much so that she-mother-instructed him and he-Dr Patel- followed her instructions and refused to sign the CCP form. Then on June 25, 2009 mother met with Mr. Lippmann of the Chicago Volunteer Legal Services. The attorney also found mother highly competant and mother vacated parts of the 2005 trust removing Carolyn Toerpe as Trustee and specifying with clarity that 6016 I was the sole owner and she was to live in her home 6014 until her passing and then it was to be passed down to Toerpe and I 50/50 and all she owned including the cash, coins, valuable furniture, jewelry et al. also split 50/50. All these safeguards, and yet Toerpe and her attorneys have taken everything for their own financial gain including my mothers freedoms and liberties as an American Citizen. So I find that she passed a driving test in January 2009 a little irrelevant when she also filed a verified petition with State employees for an order of protection on the 9th of June 2009 and right under Judge Kirby’s nose Toerpe was able to kidnap mom from the courthouse and bring her to Dr Rabin who signed a Ccp211 in a New York minute a little foolish for the political elite or policing agencies to care about now three yeas after the fact. They are watching my mother slowly die as AS CF PS CT HJW DJS and AB continue to have her drugged, isolated, and emotionally and socially neglected.

I’m completing my book for publication soon and it’s a horrific journey in time where the people mother trusted to help protect her all helped Toerpe and company destroy all people she loves and trusts and slowly murder my Mother in the process.

from Gloira Jean Sykes

Dear Readers:

Of course my question is, how is it that the GA:’s don’t see that Mary is in an unhappy place, she made numerous written directives to come home, she was doing fine with Glroia for 10+ years, and now the State of Illinois interferes with all of that.

I don’t understand why the court and why LB do not see how unfair all of this is, and Ken is right that an immediate launch of an investigation should be conducted–including interviewing Mary away from the miscreants.  It is easy for an abusive guardian to threaten the ward with a nursing home “if she does not behave.”

Mary wants to go home and she deserves to go home.  With all of the uncertainty, the litigation surrounding the two homes, they are unlikely to sell or to sell for much at all, even perhaps than the mortgages on the property.  I would not be surprised if there is a short sale on the brown house, or even on the front house to get those two properties sold. But this is the first step the Commissioner is supposed to take–can the brown house be partitioned, (and Gloria can jump in and ask what she would need to pay to avoid this, what her share it, if garage rights can be sold, etc.)  Then the commissioner should decide if it’s worth even putting the property on the market.  PS and Chase did great harm to the brown house (despite the fact the GAL’s stood by and have said nothing about that and neither has CT even tho she is a fiduciary to Mary, what’s up with that?), and most likely that damage means the property cannot be sold at a profit.  The commissioner should make that determination and that the court should release the property from the Estate because it is a burden and unlikely to realize any profit.  Gloria can submit such a report to the commissioner and maybe she will.

It’s soooo sad, when Mary was clearly very happy with Gloria and living in Norwood Park.  Gloria was going to fix up her home and eventually live there.  Mary could have lived at her home with a companion if the court or GAL’s found that necessary.  I know Gloria would have arranged for that.

JoAnne

Hot off the press:  see the links:

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwbmhuZU1GUWtNeFU

if link breaks: cut and paste

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwbmhuZU1GUWtNeFU

Two days ago I went to court and heard Chase earnestly plead with the bankruptcy judge, the hon. Donald Cassling to lift the stay in bankruptcy and allow them to promptly file a foreclosure against Gloria’s home.  Ah, but this judge is experienced, so he set the hearing for a quick date and quick discovery, two week and just a few days to a hearing Chase claims is needed to preserve its rights in foreclosure.  Obviously prompted by the GAL’s with Deborah Soehlig agreeing and encouraging this event.

So what happens next, the very next day they file a Motion to Extend the hearing by 60 to 90 days claiming that’s how long it takes to get one of their own witnesses to court!

Do you think that’s it, or do you think Gloria has some very valid defenses against Chase?

Why did Chase come and break into Gloria’s home, smashing out walls for no apparent reason on both the first and second floors.  They claim (Peter Schmeidel?) someone called them and said the home was abandoned, when it was clearly not abandoned, and that they were “securing the premises.”  Does that involve smashing out walls?  Throwing all of Gloria’s furniture into the snow in the alley in the dead of winter?  Does it involve disabling the security cameras in a detached garage not part of that premises?  I believe the garage belongs to Mary G’s lot and not Glorias.  And what about disabling the security system in the garage and disconnecting the 4 cameras.  How is breaking and entering into a garage and disabling a security system part of “securing a premises.”  Seems to me they wanted to trash the place, scare Gloria and render her homeless hoping she would go away forever.

All good questions.

JoAnne

PS–nonetheless, Chase will assuredly get 60 to 90 days to go to hearing on their request to lift the stay in bankruptcy.  So this is a great time to ask Chase, Peter Schmeidel and anyone involved with Chase the above questions in interrogatories, requests for document and requests for admissions so the matter can properly go to trial.  I know I have 33 questions I would like to ask Chase and it’s puppet Peter Schmeidel and I would like to ask the GAL’s what part, if any, they had in all of this.

Dear Reader;

These are my notes from today. They are my impressions and my typing (and btw, Tim Evans still has not gotten back to me on the use of laptops in court, but that is my preferred method for taking notes because I can do it all day with hardly a wrist/hand ache, but writing, I’m good for about 15 min tops. Since Gloria talks a lot, I think it is very important for me to be able to take notes on my laptop!  So we all need to put together another fax to him, and then perhaps a declaratory judgment lawsuit.  First amendment reigns supreme!)

If you want an accurate transcript, please order one and pay for it and I will publish it here.  Lea Black needs more documents for her file that tell the truth, since that virtue seems to be a challenge for Deborah Soehlig today, and in the past I have seen that this is a deep challenge for Adam Stern and Cynthia Farenga also.

take care all

JoAnne

Sykes bankruptcy status call on Chase’s motion to lift stay and file foreclosure in circuit court.

Gloria and an atty is in court, it is probably her new one.  Should be interesting.

Case is far behind and switched to Hon. Donald Cassling for judge

Court asks parties to identify themselves for record: Richard Bussie, debtor Gloria, Deborah for Estate of Mary G Sykes, Atty Lovejoy and an atty for Chase.  No GAL’s.  Good,

Lovejoy and DJS start right in.  They assert there is a conflict of interest over the $200M being held in Indiana.  They explain the stay was modified to allow for a partition.   Judge Hollis modified that stay to allow for partition of Gloria’s home, or the brown home.

There is no appeal of that stay according to DJS.  (This is a lie, I just found the case on Pacer and Gloria just submitted a very good trial brief on 6/5/12 and I found in on Pacer).

OC’s agree that Judge Hollis already ruled this was a probate matter and did not belong in bankruptcy.

OC explains that there is due an accounting to the Estate of MGS and that the debtor is claiming $200M in Indiana and so is the estate.  They claim there is a hearing scheduled on July 12 in Indians, which is 30 day within June 6.

Gloria raises her hand.  Oh boy, let’s go!  She starts in, visibly shaken, but she is going strong:

But first, her atty RB explains:
There is no true conflict.  This is Gloria’s money.  It was put into a bank account in someone else’s name via a verbat trust.  RB was hired by Gloria to release those funds in Indiana, and he is attempting to obtain those funds.  He explains further, the Motion for Relief from the Stay is before the court, and there is some discussion about his certification and he hands a copy of some pleadings to the lawyer from Chase, etc.

He asserts that this is a prima facie case, that the money is in escrow, it cannot be affected by an Illinois Probate court, and he is asking for the to stay in bankruptcy court.

He goes on to explain that many of the bk docts and schedules are in error, were not properly filed and he wants time to correct them and amend the ch. 11 proceeding
We are asking , o prima facie case, money is in escrow fund,

The Chase atty proceeds with how he wishes to proceed with his foreclosure and he needs the stay in bk modified.  He? Says he wants the stay lifted pursuant to both houses.  (DJS explains the white house and brown house)

6016 has been served in partition action.

The Judge asks about the stay and the status and lifting the stay against one or both houses.

OC talks about a court proceeding in probate last week (Something was done last week in probate?  It’s not on the docket.  Hmmm.)

They start to explain about the stay, and the foreclosure and partitioning a property which is the interest in the property.  DJS explains, I’m not sure how this oges.  I’m not sure it will happen.

Beemis says they have no standing in bk and the atty for the Guardian should not be there at all– this is seconded by a statement from Gloria.

Gloria wants to talk.  She has been raising her hand, she has been giving the court looks she wants to talk…..

And there we go, the judge starts with a statement, “ma’am, you cannot speak if you are represented by counsel, ….”

NOT.

Gloria starts talking.  She (DJS) has no standing, we are appealing the modification of the stay in district court (true).  Both Chase and the Estate of MGS come to the court as creditors but they are not creditors,

I prevailed in a lawsuit agains Lumbermans which involved my home, and I wanted to move forward and fix up my property.  That is also my home office.  They (all Opposing Counsel)  came into probate and stopped me from doing that.  Six attys I have hired and paid have told me that I have no standing, I have I have not been served, I have not been served at all.  They said they had to summons Chase to bring Chase into this proceeding.  I find an ambush, and I am now before Judge Darrah (sp).  There’s also a 2 1401 proceeding in the eviction they filed against me because they wrongfully took my property which was listed in my bk. No one ever lifted that (the automatic bk stay) to take my property (and wrongfully detain it from my possession).

(Attys) People from probate come in here and they have no standing.

Popjoy came in here and he told me he was collecting a debt and he was my debt collector.

All these issues are part of my Adversarial Proceeding cases.  I can prove Chase willy nilly froze all my accounts (wrongfully) in 2009.  I can prove Chase has refused my payments. (Wrongfully)

All im asking is that you (consider these wrongful actions).

I know nothing about a hearing on the 12th, they have not served me.  I think the probate court must serve me (if they want to partition my property).

Now 3 attys start talking/responding to what Gloria has spewed all over the court.

US federal credit union has the $200,000.

The court:  Enough has been raised as to allegations.  We need an evidentiary hearing (to lift the stay in bk).

I don’t know.  We’ve got a secured creditor who says he has not been paid, and that’s all they need to prove (in order to lift the stay so Chase may foreclose).

They may not be the proper holder of the note (hey glo, ask for discovery)

I cannot indefinitely string them out. This has to be set for a quick evidentiary hearing.  I will give every one expedited discovery.  Set a hearing on two weeks .

(Attys start to argue about their schedules).  The court: I can set this for the 25th starting at 10 am.

The court: the only issue presented will be Chase’s motion for relief of the automatic stay.  They will need to establish they hold the note, they have not been paid, they will be allowed to establish defenses to Gloria’s claims.

this will be in the morning on the 26th.

I will set it 9 am on the 25th.  9 to 11, should be plenty of time, by close of business, look at pretrial order, and get those done by 22nd, close of business.  One line description of witnesses and what they will testify to.

Split it up an hour apiece.   Now popjoy brings up 200,000 and wonders if chase will file suit against those for the deficiency.  I don’t have a motion in front of me.
I need list of witnesses and exhibits by the 22nd.

Status terminated.

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Jun 10, 2012 1:08 PM
To: GLD , ‘LUCIUS VERENUS’ , “Grant H. Goodman” , “ghgoodman@hotmail.com”
Subject: Re: National Forum On Judicial Accountability (NFOJA)

Andrew Thomas rolls out Citizens for Clean Courts

‘If they can do it to me, they can do it to anyone’

PHOENIX – Former Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas, on behalf of Citizens for Clean Courts, held the first of a series of press conferences on May 31 at the state capitol to advocate support of Proposition 115.

House Concurrent Resolution 1001 passed overwhelmingly with bipartisan support in the legislature to become Proposition 115 on the November ballot.

HCR 1001 proposes to amend various sections of Article VI of the Arizona Constitution relating to the judicial department.

While serving as county attorney, Thomas attempted to clean up corruption in the courts, only to find himself facing a force much larger than he imagined; one that eventually resulted in his being disbarred along with Deputy County Attorney Lisa Aubuchon and suspension of Deputy County Attorney Rachel Alexander’s license.

Just before the press conference began, Thomas said, “If they can do it to me, they can do it to anyone.”

Thomas began the press conference with the quote, “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

The saying, while repeated by many, first arose as part of a quotation by John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton, otherwise known as Lord Acton (1834–1902).

Acton, a historian and moralist, expressed this sentiment in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton in 1887, in which he wrote, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.”

Thomas introduced Patti Gomes, who said it was uncomfortable talking about her situation and initially thought hers was an isolated incident.

Gomes told the story of how her mother ended up in the probate court system and said, “The court failed my mother.”

She said, “If you have an estate, it is in jeopardy.”

Gomes stated the court ignored living trusts and living wills, while it denied her petition to become her mother’s conservator.

She said the court assigned a person to investigate who later turned guardian.

Gomes talked about “non-appearance hearings,” during which the court approved a multitude of payments, charging her mother’s estate.

When Gomes contested the court’s actions, she said the court used her mother’s money to defend its actions.

They charged her mother’s estate for numerous trips to the mall and the purchase of stuffed animals.

Gomes brought up the well-publicized cases of Maria Long, who has been left penniless by the probate court, and the case of a Disney heir, although declared competent, whom the court refused to release from its guardianship.

Stating she totally supports Proposition 115, Gomes emphasized how no one is safe with a living will and living trust under the current system.

She also encouraged victims to contact them via e-mail at citizens4clean courts@cox.net so they may become involved.

Dear Readers;

Now as far as any Illinois licensed attorney knows, under the Illinois Rules of Civil Procedure, once one pleading in a suit is verified (swearing that the fact contained therein are true and accurate to the best of the verifier’s recollection, or where based upon information and belief, were believed to be true at the time the statements were made)–then all subsequent pleadings filed by either party must be verified.  But LB doesn’t seem to understand this.  Ken Ditkowsky has ask LB to verify a lot of the junk she has filed against him, and most importantly, her answers to his discovery requests, and she has not done that.

What’s up with that?  All attorneys require their clients to sign verification sheets with pleadings (except where completely based upon procedure and which contain no real statements or admissions by the parties), so why can’t the ARDC do that?

Isn’t this just another huge red herring laying on the floor of KD’s ardc proceeding indicating it is completely fishy?

Other indicators: 1) Gloria and Scot submit affidavits with KD”s motion to dismiss and these affidavits are conveniently, accidently-on-purpose lost by the ARDC and “unavailable” to use for that pleading; 2) LB isn’t signing verifications sheets of all the pleadings; 3) she contacts me to “take a statement” fully well knowing we had quite a discussion in Dec 2011 that I wanted him to represent me, and that while he wants to do the proceeding pro se because it is complex and involved, I would be helping him all the way.

4)   Also, don’t you think it is strange that I fax LB all sorts of stuff on the case, indicating corruption and cronyism — transcripts that make it clear the miscreant attys are talking to the court exparte “behind the scenes” and I get no response from her or her offices.  Not even a “thank you.”

5) she also has not explained why she thinks we are publishing things “with disregard for the truth” when I sent her a 10 page “table of torts” from the miscreants indicating all their mis-stepts, tortious behavior, blatant mistreatment of Gloria and her mother–a now 93 year old lady whose wishes and directives (live in her own home until she passes over, be with Gloria and her family) are being completely ignored while CT’s pack of lies, theft, forgeries, etc. are amazingly blatant and never seem to get addressed.

Has Ms. Black no heart that she has DONE NOTHING to get Mary home?

Mary should be living at home and Gloria should be caring for her, as Gloria has done for 10+ years.

Mary wants to come home.  The video tapes I and other have posted on the internet have made it clear she knows what she wants, she left written clear directives, and LB should be ensuring those directives are carried out.

JoAnne

Now from Ken Ditkowsky who is also working tirelessly, without pay, to ensure that justice is being done.

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Jun 5, 2012 9:43 PM
To: GLORIA Jean SYKES , scott evans
Cc: Tim Lahrman NASGA , states attorney , Sherrif Dart
Subject: Re: strange communications from the Ms. Black

No need to comment re: CF & KD, as JoAnne’s eloquent response more than covers it.  I would however like to add some thoughts & ramblings of my own this evening.

Having recently returned from a most enjoyable afternoon with 50+ relatives celebrating my cousin’s sons graduation, my heart is filled with love for my family. The compassion, concern, generosity of spirit and love for each other, warmed the cockles of my heart.  

In stark contrast I am faced with the isolation of my Aunt Mary (Mary Sykes) at the age of 93.  My crime as explained by her guardian is that I did not side with her (the guardian) during the proceedings.

How could I side with the person that my Aunt begged me to help her stop from taking over her life?

My punishment, is that I am not allowed to speak with or visit my Aunt.  Having not seen her since September of 2009, it saddens me deeply that one person has been able to cause so much pain and heartache, never considering her own mother’s wishes.  

The cruelty of keeping one’s own mother from the family she regularly had contact with is  unimaginable and makes one wonder as to why?

Oddly enough, both guardian ad litem seem to see nothing wrong with this behavior. I would have thought they would question or wonder as to why the guardian has isolated her own mother from her younger daughter (Gloria), her youngest sister (Yolanda), and many of her nieces and nephews.

How is it that the people who are supposed to look out for the wards best interests do not even question as to why the ward has been separated from the people she has loved the most?  While my Aunt objected in open court, neither GAL batted an eye.

Aunt Mary asked Judge Connor’s who was fooling who and for what.  

I couldn’t ask it better myself.

Dear Readers;

As we are all aware, Ken Ditkowsky has been the subject matter of numerous ARDC complaints from the GAL’s in the Sykes case despite the fact that US Supreme Court cases have consistently made it clear that everyone should be given the highest priority to free speech under the US constitution. I have been the subject of one, and while it has not gone anywhere in nearly 6 months now, I realize that from the get go, if I did not start to scream loudly, I would be next.  The writing was on the wall, that’s for sure.

The ARDC routinely ignores these rights by allowing complaints to be filed and then stand against attorneys.  I have searched Fastcase high and low and have not found another single case where an atty was disciplined for helping out a client on a blog.  I have found a few cases where the ARDC has required or requested disclaimers for overly laudatory atty blogs.  But nothing like what has happened in the Sykes case and the Illinois ARDC.

Apparently quite a number of you agree with KD and myself and believe that everyone–and I believe attorneys especially–have the duty and obligation to speak out against corruption, kangaroo courts and nepotism and cronyism.

Chicago has been voted the most corrupt region by a two to one margin, hands down.  Unless the general populace here demands more accountability from our court system, and apparently the Illinois ARDC, the level of corruption will continue as it has in the past.

Read the comments below and I and Ken want to thank all of you for realizing that when the attorneys are threatened for uncovering corruption and croynyism, the system has sunk to its deepest low and the general population better start protesting because, well, democracy is not a spectator sport.

Thanks to everyone who has complimented Ken.   He is fighting a pretty lonely fight.  I have tried to get dozens of other attys involved in this, but Ken and myself stand alone and stand resolute.

JoAnne

PS–has anyone else noted any other attys on any probate blog that are just there trying to hlep out others for free?  Plmk and I will put up their names on a page commending them for their hard work in the fight against court corruption.

Now, for comment’s on Ken’s writings:

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Jun 3, 2012 6:18 AM
To: nasga us
Subject: Re: NASGA Blog: “Attorney Ken Ditkowsky: The Constitution vs. Whores of Justice”

From Ken Ditkowsky:

Thanks for your thoughts Ken, and I agree completely.  This is a practice that just has to stop.  While the courts routinely ignore cell phones, tablets and other laptop usages, they have ONLY seized my laptop and that was after a purse pet named Adam Stern whined about my blogging.
The incident in which Attorney JoAnne Denison had her laptop seized by a Sheriff’s deputy apparently upon the complaint of Guardian ad Litem Adam Stern that she might be blogging is not only a chilling event, but demonstrative of the wrongful delegation of authority that is evident in Probate Proceedings involving disabled persons.    First:  Why should Adam Stern be concerned about the exercise of First Amendment Rights by a person sitting in the courtroom?    Second: Why should anyone be concerned that a person keeping to themselves doing nothing disruptive or distracting might be ‘blogging.’    Third: why should Adam Stern have the power to prevent an attorney who is observing a public court proceeding from taking notes?
The problem in a ‘nut shell’ is the fact that there are people who act in a disproportionate manner when they are given authority.     The Chicago Police Department and other law enforcement agencies has psychological tests to weed out these people as their potential miscreant behavior can and does create a clear and present danger to the public  that they are to serve and protect.       As I’ve noted many times there are guardians and guardians’ ad litem who are perfectly proper in their behavior and very diligent and appropriate in the management and treatment of their wards.    However, as the September 2011 GAO reported noted there is a cadre of individuals who have and are taking unfair advantage of the elderly and other disabled persons who they are charged to act as fiduciaries toward.    These singled out individuals are subjected to forfeiture of their liberty, property, civil and human rights by the actions or lack of actions of the aforesaid fiduciaries.
It is unfortunate that this small cadre of court appointed individuals usurps the jurisdiction of the Court and as illustrated by the incident involving Attorney Denison’s laptop are able to abrogate the First Amendment and Article One of the Illinois Constitution.    All too often there is a delegation of the judicial authority to the misbehaving court appointed individuals and they become and speak for the Court rather than the judge.     This apparently is what has happened in the Sykes case and similar cases.
Before the Court and the Judicial System is further embarrassed by another ‘greylord’ scandal it is very necessary that a full and complete investigation commence and any misconduct on the part of the court appointed individuals be appropriately addressed.    In Sykes there is approximately a million dollars in un-inventoried property.    In Tyler it is Nine million dollars.   I understand that many law firms are closing their doors – it does not cover the legal profession with glory when the Courts and the Attorney regulators foster what amounts to legalized theft of ‘grandma’s assets’  and the evasion of the lawful United States of America income taxes due.
The seizure of the laptop is a symptom of the ‘cover-up’ of the corruption and delegation of the Court’s jurisdiction that the failure of law enforcement to conduct a full, honest and comprehensive investigation is fostering.     Mr. Stern and Ms. Farenga’s complaint to the ARDC concerning the call for an investigation and the ARDC’s prosecution of me for making the call is not one of the high points in American jurisprudence.      I reiterate my call for an investigation in the loudest voice that I can muster and call upon those citizens who believe that grandma’s liberty, property, civil and human rights are sacred to join with me in the call.

Ken Ditkowsky
http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

FAX TRANSMITTAL SHEET
To:
Judge Timothy Evans
Circuit Court Cook County

Fax: 312-603-5366
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

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 312-553-1300
A confirmation copy       WILL   ✔   will NOT be sent.
Pages in fax, including this coversheet – (   )
June 2, 2012

Re: Seizure of attorney laptops in Probate court

Dear Judge Evans;

It has come to my attention that there is a pressing crisis in your courtrooms and namely, that is the taking of laptops by court room personnel whenever it appears that someone is concerned about the proceeding in a courtroom.

This has happened to me twice.  And twice I told the bailiff that I was only taking notes and she told me that I might be “recording” and that is prohibited.

I went to the chief judge of Probate and she said that it does not matter that I was helping a client and was blogging, that it is security that determines the rules regarding laptops and security has determined there might be recording.

What?

Has no one been on ebay and seen that for $10 you can get a pen that records all day? Or a coke can or a number of innoculous devices that do this.  Everyone knows that security is brain cell challenged, but…..

However, the most pressing issue is the right to free and fair court rooms and in this manner, I believe the Chicago area is sorely lacking and no one trusts the courts or politicians any longer because were were recently voted the most corrupt region by a clear margin of 2 to  1!

Two to one!   One would think that an atty taking notes in a courtroom that is or maybe clearly biased would be applauded, but think again.

In this case the courtrooms are replete with attorneys and the public that text and email on cell phones all day long.  But it was only when Attorney Stern noted during a Dec. 21, 2012 hearing that I might be blogging that my laptop was actually confiscated by a court room bailiff and waived about as if it were a flag or something.

I had to actually tell the bailiff that when you waive around a laptop, it has a tiny pointing device that actually destroys sectors on a hard drive and to stop doing that or the laptop will be ruined.

Why are court room personnel confiscating laptops of attorneys when they clearly have no training to do so.  And further, it is an affront to myself and my clients because my laptops have all of my client communications going back to 1992.

Also, no one in the court considered the possibility that some of the documents on my laptop were subject to Protective Orders in Federal District courts and other federal tribunals.  Under those orders, once a 3rd party not subject to the Protective Order comes in possession of confidential documents inadvertent retention and disclosure is always of paramount concern, and yet I saw none of that in the court room that day.  Same for cell phones which can literally contain thousands of PDF documents.  If seizure of computerized note taking processing devices is to be the norm, who is securing the client and business data to protect US citizens and corporations.

And my profession is a patent attorney, so what about patent documents that have been deemed secret by the US government.  What of those?  No one seems to ask or be concerned.

Are they responsible if a crooked bailiff scams my hard drive in seconds?

I don’t understand where all this is coming from.

Court rooms are supposed to be public.  It is in everyone’s best interest we no longer have secret tribunals that let the courts do as they please.

Attorney documents and confidential client data and information should be inviolate.  The public should not have to fear providing their attorney with all the information she needs to protect her and promote the interests of her person and business.s

First amendment rights to free speech and the press reporting on the activities of a courtroom are supposed to be afforded the highest priority–a priority that even extends to fundamentalist Christian protestors at funerals of soldiers  that demand there is punishment coming from the heavens above for letting gays in the military.

But I can’t take laptop notes in a courtroom.  While others are busily texting and emailing away willy nilly.  Probably half the public and attys in a court room do this all day long.

Maybe no one likes blogs.  They report what we all don’t want to hear–the courts are twisted and corrupt.

But then again, if you want to easily clean up your courts so you gain impunity, you should be thanking attys like myself that show up to hearings, blog and publish so miscreants know they are being watched.

Please reverse this ruling and publish it in every courtroom.  Attys and the public that are taking notes need to do so.  The bailiffs can be trained in programs that record on every device from cell phones to pens to laptops and they should literally stop the court proceedings, popup the task manager and check those programs for recording.

If the program does not record, what is the problem?

Thanks

JoAnne Denison

PS–it seems to me there is great liability out there for liability for refusing to let attys take notes on cases where the court or the attorneys might be corrupt.  Do you want to start taking a list of these?  I already have two corrupt cases for you already.

Very Truly Yours,

DENISON & ASSOCS, PC

JoAnne Denison

JoAnne M. Denison

cc:

The attached is one of the most interesting transcripts I have seen in a long time and it is so because you can see how Judge Stuart is basically side stepping all the major issues in the case.  She goes to great lengths and tremendous twisting of the facts, so get prepared:

First, the link to the transcript:

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwOGlTS3p2azY0UFU

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwOGlTS3p2azY0UFU

(if link breaks)

1.  With respect to the Soldini notices, Judge Stuart says that it is her understanding that Judge Connors looked at the issue at the time of appointment of CT and decided she had jurisdiction, and that is why she would not review it on 7/8/11.  Very interesting.  Except the law is, you can bring up jurisdiction at any time and if it’s notice type subject matter jurisdiction, the case MUST be dismissed.  The court is supposed to look at subject matter jurisdiction at any time because it’s sooo important.  It’s due process.  Sodini.  So that means the judge is side stepping the following 1) an admission by Harvey Waller that he never served the 14 day notices; 2) that there was no time between the care plan hearing by Gloria on Nov 22, 2009 and the Hearing to appoint Carolyn on Dec 7, 2012 which would have been inadequate time to prepare the 14 day notices–it was not until 11/22 that the hearing date on the Petition to Appoint was set for Dec 7th (look at the docket, dofus); 3) protestations and affidavits by the 2 sisters they never received 14 day notices; and 3) from time to time the GAL’s will state that the appointment of a Guardian was not by hearing, but by agreement between the parties. (Waffle no. 1)  In this transcript Farenga says Mary was supposed to be in court on Dec 7, but she was not there. (Waffle No. 2)  She then waffles on Mary’s need for an atty (p. 23).  (Waffle no. 3) Pretty amazing.

2.  For some reason the court is ignoring the fact that during a partition or when the motion is made, a party can defeat the partition by showing an accounting to the court that the other owner is not entitled to any proceeds owing from the transaction.  In this case, the court said they would just split everything 50/50.  Gloria protested that she paid an $18,000 down payment, so she is entitled to that back.  Then there was argument over whether the $165,000 was just on Gloria’s half, or if it was also on Mary’s half, until someone noted that Mary also signed the mortgage note.  Gloria protested that she always paid the mortgage (so one would assume she would get the credit on this), but the court said it would not matter, the mortgage would run against both halves and did not mention any accounting or credit for what Gloria paid, including but not limited to:  mortgage, taxes, insurance, repairs, etc. over the years of ownership.  Gloria should get credit, but the court didn’t think this was the law. (My question is, who convinced the court of this law).

3.  Next, the Court goes into lengthy detail as to why a 2-1401 motion to set aside a judgment did not have to be filed.  The court said it was only attacking an apportionment agreement, which is only a private agreement between two parties and it has nothing to do with a judgement or order of another court.  Gloria responded that the Agreement was part of the Order dismissing the case and it was reviewed by the chancery court, that Mary was represented by her own counsel at the time, but it didn’t seem to matter to the judge.  she seems to treat the apportionment agreement as a private agreement not heard by the chancery court, nor entered as part of a court order.  The GAL’s and PS seem to have convinced her of this. (new stack of waffles, please–that what happens when the judge goes to law school by letting attys into the private area reserved for judges and discussing cases with the attys there.  Duh)

4)  Finally, Adam Stern starts to complaint about being contacted by the Naperville police dept (p62) and that the sergeant says he was inundated with 513 emails regarding Mary’s condition and he wants Gloria and “her followers” to be admonished to stop this. He says he investigated several months ago and found nothing wrong with Mary or her living conditions.   Now see what the court says.  The court does not know who caused all those emails. but Gloria needs to think about this because it will turn into a Chicken Little situation.

BUT not to beat poor little Chicken Little to death,on the very SAME page we have CF going on and on about “a decline” in Mary’s condition and next page'”in the forseeable future” there may be a need for “more skilled care than they can provide..money is an issue.  Money is needed to care for Mary.” Another stack of waffles.  If all Mary needs is custodial care, then relatives are expected to pay for her care or suck up and do it themselves and Medicare won’t.  The GAL’s and the court know this.  BUT, if her needs are serious and cannot be done by family, then Medicare will pay.  Medicare does not require Mary to divest herself of a survivorship interest in a family owned home–only the GAL’s and CT want this.  I know this.  Most attys dealing with the elderly know this.  The probate court knows this fer sure.  Nursing homes are dangerous places no elder should ever have to go to–unless there is no family to care for her.  Now steps in Gloria, she did it for years and she actually promised her mom she would keep her at home until she passed over.

I’m going to say this again, in case LB or the GAL’s don’t get it.  Gloria cared for her mother for years.  Gloria paid the bills.  Gloria kept things going.  Mary was in EXCELLENT health.  She walked every day, she took care of her dog Hannah (okay she did spoil her by giving her inappropriate treats such as chocolate, but hey, I do that too and most vets now say “spoiled pets welcome”).  She was still in the garden club and even doing gardening.  She swept the street.  She visited with the nice firemen at the fire dept. next door, she went to the bank couple times per week  (which is when she became enraged that Carolyn removed $4,000 from Mary’s account without her permission and so Mary went downtown to get a protective order against CT, instead what happened is Carolyn got appointed guardian and the rest is history.

Another amazing transcript of Gloria being ignored, mistreated and spent off in Probate court.

On July 11, 2011 the GAL’s complained about Gloria’s postings on the regular guardianship blogs–NAGSA, Probate Sharks, etc…… Little did they know what lay around the corner.

First they got the nagging doubts of lay persons.  Now they have some real sharks to deal with.  Lawyers that write blogs, read transcripts and the most heinous issue of all–WE ASK THE QUESTIONS THAT NEED TO BE ASKED.

The court was wrong.  We should ALL BE CALLING FOR AN INVESTIGATION of this Probate Case and why is the court saying “don’t do wellness checks” when in fact it is stated in the court’s own transcripts that Mary is in decline.  She never declined at the home managed by Gloria.  She at gourmet vegan and Gloria always did prompt doctor’s care.

Keep on emailing.  Keep on helping Gloria.  Sign the petitions that are posted above, write your senators and representatives and tell them NO MORE denying our elderly their due process rights.

Gloria has the Power of Attorney for Health Care of her mother.  Not CT, so why did the court ignore this.

The court is wrong.  The US Constitution and the Illinois Constitution guarantees each and ever one of us the rights to free speech and to cry out when an elderly person is being abused and manipulated  to her detriment.

Don’t be cowed by this transcript.  It’s not right and it should not have ever happened.

JoAnne

PS–Gloria, with all this waffling by the GAL’s, I think your best bet is to bring some maple syrup to court and just set it out every time they start to knit together their stories for the nth time.  Uuugh.
PPS–When they lie, don’t shout out “he’s a liar”, just bring a rug–you know, maybe even one of those doll house rugs.  You can get one at Gigis dolls and Sherris Teddy bears.  Use a stack of post its, write down each lie, and stack them up on the little rug.  When the miscreants start lying, don’t interrupt, just ask when it’s your turn and go thru those little post its on the rug, one by one.

I’m sure the GAL’s are reading this, so when you come in with your little rug and pull out the post its, I bet they never tell the judge you have to bring a rug to hold all their little (and not so little) lies, well, because they lie like a R U G.

PPPS–not to beat the making of waffles to death (pun intended), but from this transcript, it is clear the judge is talking to the miscreant attys in the hallway, Scott and Gloria always see them coming from behind the judge’s private areas, and it is clear that the court is being spoonfed BS law by atty miscreants rather than having to actually read cases and make decisions based upon briefing schedules.  The law with respect to partitions should have been briefed.  The court was often confused by the facts.  The court should have set a briefing schedule on 1) the partition; 2) the accounting on the brown house; 3) subject matter jurisdiction, as brought up by Gloria, etc.

This was not done.  And when formal briefs are not required, justice suffers.

first, the links:

Dear Readers;

As you may be aware, a number of videos of Mary G Sykes that I put up on youtube showing her to be a thinking, competent person with clear and appropriate intentions (she wants both daughters to share in her estate, she wants both daughters to share in taking care of her, she wants to go home and live at home until she passes, etc.)–most were flagged and removed from youtube.com.

what?  g-rated videos taken down?  Impossible, you might say.

But here we have it, a 90 year old speaking her mind, and those must be removed?  Why? Who benefits from this?  Evil and greedy GAL’s that want to churn the bill and make money while Mary G has no rights and no due process?  An evil and greedy daughter CT who had her mom sign documents at an atty in 2005 and refused to give her mother copies of those documents and her assets were allegedly placed in a trust in a trust document that is clearly void abinition under the Statute of Uses?

Interesting.

So go ahead and look at the videos and when it is clear they get red flagged and taken down because they show competency post Dec 8, 2009 finding of incompetency, let me know.

There are many, many august persons who do not want these videos to be kept on youtube.

UPDATE on videos.  Last night I got a plug-in to scam the videos and they are now all up at the vimeo link.  To do this, you just need to get a free “video downloader” plug in added to your Firefox.

take care

joanne

the link:     https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwZFRoMGlMbjVjODg

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwZFRoMGlMbjVjODg

Dear Readers;

First of all, I have to apologize for having been off line for a few days.  As many of you know, I had a $350 Acer computer for years.  Because I work on a ton of cases that do a lot of good, but there is not much income from them (ahem, case in point for this blog), I decided to opt for a cheapie laptop last time around to see how that would stack up against my typical $2,000 Dell business laptops I got tired of paying for.  Well, the Acer did great.  It beat the Dells for reliability and repairs hands down. But last Friday it hit a glitch and would no longer charge the battery so I took it into Microcenter for repairs.  I had purchased a 2 year extended warranty, one year mfgr, then another two years of Microcenter warranty.  Imagine my surprised when Julia told me the good news, that the mother board was burned up and they could not replace it so would I accept a $450 gift card.  Hell YES.    Within an hour I was down at Microcenter oogling laptops with that gift card and settled on a near-ultrabook–a Toshiba Portege, i5, 700 Gb hard drive, CD/DVD drive 5400 rpms at a 14″ screen and 3 lbs, it’s laptop heaven for me!

Of course I got the warranty right away.  So long live Microcenter and thank goodness for my  computer angels.  Just to let you know, they pushed to scam my old hard drive–which did not crash–for $150.  I told the guy “nope, my kid will do that for me.”  He replied, “are you sure he’s qualified.”  I answered, “Well, he’s been building computers and repairing cell phones since about age 10, Microsoft certified since age 12, and running my network since age 14, and now he’s a math and computer science major at SIU, so yeah, I think this is QED for him.”

Now the dirty little secret of what the guy was saying is that all I needed was a housing for my 2.5″ laptop hard drive and those housings have USB cables that plug and play on any laptop, so in this case I did 95% of the data copying myself.  For some reason, microsoft puts everything in directories 10 deep, and I hate that, but I copied that, as well as where I put my data which is just in c:\data.  How easy is that?  So save yer $150 if your motherboard crashes and just scam your data yourself with a $8 housing (okay I opted for the fancy metal one–but the plastic ones at $5 look flimsy to me).  I put the whole thing together at the microcenter check out with .99 cent screwdriver set.

Okay, back to law.  I hope you all learned how to save $125 to $150 when you motherboard fails.  For a hard drive failure, be sure to image-backup!

I have a few good posts for the next few days so read on.

When I have nothing better to do with my meager bucks I get out of going to work or working for 10+ hours per day, I order some of Gloria’s transcripts, because well, she’s pretty much a hoot in court and stands up to the GAL’s and their beastly “witnesses”.

The transcript link I posted above is the most recent and best one.  In this one, not only does Gloria continue to make her case that the [legal fora] proceedings are nothing but a sham, but she gets the [entity] to go on and on about how the [legal fora] can go back in time as it desires (oh, puleeze, beam me up Scotty), and get some quack-corrupt [entity] (hmmm, why does the name [entity] come to mind?) to say that he knows 4 years ago that Mary Sykes was incompetent to make or understand or even dictate her desires to sign off on the apportionment agreement. (If he knows that then why isn’t he beating out some real psychic pros like Sylvia Browne, James Van Praagh, John Edmonds, etc.)

But the best part of this transcript is you can see how the court justifies this clearly inane conclusion.

And there’s the little matter of 2-1401 that says judgments must be attacked in 2 years.  The court clearly does not believe that the “apportionment agreement” is a judgment or court order.  This court thinks it was a private agreement made between two parties and was never court reviewed or court approved.  This court further believes that Probate is the only full faith and credit courtroom that has ever existed or will ever existed.  Thank goodness there are only sovereigns sitting in those courtrooms running their own little fiefdoms.

Does this clearly speak to the out of control meglomania of [legal fora]–that it answers to no other court or jurisdiction besides whatever pops into its own little head–like a low flying airplane?

Read the transcript and judge for yourself.  This one will also go on my “crazy transcript” page.  I’m actually thinking of holding a contest for the craziest of all theSykes  transcripts. Clearly the one where the court sanctions KD for $5,000 and is overturned has to be number one or near the top.

Just let me know

JoAnne