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
From: GLORIA Jean SYKES <gloami@msn.com>
To: kenditkowsky@yahoo.com; scott evans <scottcevans@hotmail.com>
Cc: Tim Lahrman NASGA <timlahrman@aol.com>; states attorney <statesattorney@cookcountyil.gov>; Sherrif Dart <sheriff.dart@cookcountyil.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, June 5, 2012 4:47 PM
Subject: RE: strange communications from the Ms. Black
Dear Ken,I have had the same mailing address since 1998: it is also on my faxes. I am not hiding or asking Ms. Black to ‘find me”: I’m in plain sight (and unless an unknown person or persons i.e. Peter Schmiedel) has snatched up my mail before I retrieve it from my mail box), I do receive my mail and have received my mail at 6016 N. Avondale, Chicago, IL 60631. Suffice, I have provided my email to Ms. Black and the ARDC so many times, that it is foolish and even comical that she or any person at the ARDC is clueless as to how to contact me: she also has my telephone number. What I believe as true is that she does not want to talk to me and as she “cannot handle the truth”. (I love that scene from A Few Good Men.) None of us should be naive so to beleive that Ms. Black cannot contact me, Ken. I can’t speak for Scott Evans, but I do know that he frequents the Daley Center and in fact, has been to the Chicago ARDC office many times: I doubt if he’s playing hide and seek with Ms. Black, either.As far as being wrongfully and forcefully ‘evicted’ from my Homestead, that too is being dealt with in the appropriate venue(s): I was neither a tenant and/or had a lease with my Mother. (Of course, Schmiedel and company are now saying I was a squatter, but their ‘eviction notice’ stated that I had a ‘month-to-month oral agreement’ with my mother. I’m wondering how Schmiedel and Company sleep at night! Using a 93-year-old woman to churn assets and destroy lives is truly an act none like any German war-criminal who raped innocents of their homes, possessions and then slaughtered the old, disabled and children like they were contaminated, toxic and ill alley rats. But now I’m off subject. Sadly, Ken, Peter Schmiedel, Adam Stern, and Cynthia Farenga’s business-as-usual acts apparently are brushed under the rug like bugs, in order to protect people at the ARDC, who have jobs to protect the public*****.
Healthy Regards,
Gloria Jean Sykes
Bon Ami Productions, Inc.
773.910-3310(cell)
773.631-9262 (fax and office line)Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 14:23:10 -0700 From: kenditkowsky@yahoo.com Subject: strange communications from the Ms. Black To: gloami@msn.com; scottcevans@hotmail.com CC: timlahrman@aol.com; statesattorney@cookcountyil.govGloria,As you are aware I wrote Ms. Black pursuant to Rule 201(k) to complain that she had not complied with my document requests. Following the ‘Brady Rule’ applicable to criminal cases I made demands for the investigative reports that should provide me with the information as to what, if anything, I lied concerning. As I am confident that every word that I uttered was true and that everything that I did was not only appropriate by protected by the First Amendment and Article 1 of the Illinois constitution I made demand for among other documents the investigative reports. Obviously, as this entire ARDC complaint is predicated upon shutting me up and discouraging me from the exercise of my First Amendment Rights I was not surprised that there had been no investigative reports. Had there been any investigation the ARDC would have had to take this matter to law enforcement and ask them to conduct an investigation into the activities of the two guardian ad litem, the plenary guardian and the attorney for the plenary guardian.The Answering letter that I received from Ms. Black this afternoon, inaccurately stated that she had provided me with a 214 affidavit. (This is an affidavit that she had made a diligent inquiry and search and she had in fact provided me with all the documents that I requested). There is no 214 affidavit. A 214 affidavit would have destroyed the illusion of sending me 3000 plus pieces of paper most of which were portions of e-mails either written to me or written in part by me. In most cases there were three or four copies of each document. The production also furnished me with copies of the documents that I filed in the ARDC proceedings.This production was sophmoric, but when a baseless complaint is filed with the intention of intimidating a person into forfeiting his First Amendment Rights I guess it is effective. I am really resentful that I am afforded so little respect, but I guess I should be impressed that such ‘august persons’ as Stern, Farenga, and Schmiedel are interested in me.Therefore I sent the following letter to Ms Black:Dear Ms. Black,I checked the documents that you sent me. There is no 214 affidavit. Please forward a copy to this office immediately as apparently it was not included in the documents forwarded to me.I did not request any materials that were not related to this particular proceeding, nor do I want such information; however, I do want the materials that are that are listed on the Request to Produce documents. If there are documents that you claim are privileged the documents ought to be described and submitted as part of a privilege log so that it can be determined if they are indeed privileged. For your convenience enclosed are duplicate copies of the Rule 214 document requests.I am ‘shocked’ that you listed both Gloria Sykes and Scott Evans on your witness list and you do not have their addresses. If a scintilla of a legitimate investigation of whether or not the statements made in the complaint that you drafted are accurate or true had been made, you would have at the very least the addresses of both Sykes and Evans. Someone would have talked to them in detail.That said, Gloria Sykes was ‘by trick’ evicted from her homestead and I did not inquire as to where she moved. I contact her by using her e-mail address which is sufficient for my purposes. She is very co-operative and working diligently to right the grievous wrongs that have befallen her and her mother when without the Sodini requirements (jurisdictional protections) her mother was unlawfully taken from her home, her family, her friends and her neighbors and summarily separated from her liberty, property, civil rights and human rights. Just for the record, the Sodini protections are critical and if there has not been strict compliance therewith, it should be apparent that what we have is another Greylord scandal coupled with a Gulag!Scott Evans continues to reside where he has always resided. As a Federal employee with high security clearance normally I would be reluctant to provide anyone with his address, especially as he has not authorized me to give out his address. The address can not be much of a secret if it can be found on the ‘net.’Pursuant to Rule 201 (k) I would appreciate the 214 affidavit and the balance of the material requested by a short date._____________________________________________________________It has been a long time since anyone has attempted to ‘bully’ me and even longer since I’ve been exposed to so many legal professionals with so little respect for the State and Federal Constitutions and the oath that they took when they were admitted to the bar. I guess we should not be surprised that the Ten Commandments had to be removed from the courthouse as it created a hostile work environment for the lawyers and judges.We need a complete and comprehensive investigation of all the allegations made in the Sykes case. – I do not fear an investigation! My file is open to law enforcement. Let the other side open up its files!Ken Ditkowsky
MaryGSykes.com 