A Motion to Dismiss/Non Suit for 09 P 4585 prepared just for Gloria

Posted on July 31, 2012 by Joanne M Denison

Dear Readers;

The RTF version of this has been sent to Gloria and KD has strongly recommended to her she file it ASAP.

The next version will be for Kathy.

I would love to see each of Cynthia Farenga, Gloria Sykes and Kathy Bakken get to court and motion this up and all present it on the same day.

And Adam, I would never leave you out. Let me know if you want me to do one for you too!

thanks

JoAnne

Attorney Code Pro Se

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
COUNTY DEPARTMENT, PROBATE DIVISION

In Re the Estate of

Mary G. Sykes,
An Alleged Disabled
No.: 09 P 4585
Hon. Jane Louise Stuart

NOTICE OF EMERGENCY MOTION
To: See attached service list:

Please take notice, that on the ___ day of August, 2010, the undersigned will appear before the Honorable Judge Jane Louis Stuart or any judge sitting in her stead in the courtroom usually occupied by her in Room 1814 of the Richard J Daley Center, Chicago, Illinois, and present the attached EMERGENCY MOTION TO DISMISS/NON SUIT FOR LACK OF SODINI JURISDICTION, and true and correct copes of which are attached hereto and served upon you.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

_______________________________
Gloria Sykes, daughter,
Pro Se
Prepared By:

Gloria Jean Sykes
6016 N. Avondale Ave
Chicago, IL 60631
Phone: 773-910-3310
email: gloami@msn.com Attorney Code # Pro Se

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
COUNTY DEPARTMENT, PROBATE DIVISION

In Re the Estate of

Mary G. Sykes,
An Alleged Disabled

No.: 09 P 4585
Hon. Jane Louise Stuart

EMERGENCY
MOTION TO DISMISS/NON SUIT FOR LACK OF SOLDINI
JURISDICTION/LACK OF PROPER NOTICE OF HEARING ON
PETITION FOR GUARDIANSHIP

This motion is brought by Gloria Jean Sykes, daughter of the above Respondent, who is an interested party and should have been named in Exhibit A to the Petition for Guardianship filed by Carolyn Toerpe in the above proceeding and is made pursuant to Probate Code 735 755 ILCS § 5/11a(f) requiring written Notice for any Hearing on Guardianship be provided by the Petitioner in the matter to all close relatives (as defined by the Probate Act) and served no less than 14 days in advance of the hearing. The one and only necessary ground for this motion is that Petitioner, Carolyn Toerpe, and her attorneys of record, failed to serve ANY close relatives as required under this Probate Code section with ANY written form of notice 14 days in advance of the hearing date, as declared in the attached pleadings recently brought to my attention.
The grounds for this motion are:
1.    The Illinois Probate Act 755 ILCS § 5/11a:
(f) Notice of the time and place of the hearing shall be given by the petitioner by mail or in person to those persons, including the proposed guardian, whose names and addresses appear in the petition and who do not waive notice, not less than 14 days before the hearing. 755 ILCS § 5/11a. (Emphasis added).
2.    The Illinois Probate Act define the required notice be served upon adult children    and siblings of the Respondent. In the above case, Mary G. Sykes has two adult    sisters, Ms. Yolanda Bakken and Ms. Josephine DiPietro, as well as a daughter    Gloria Sykes who should have been served under 755 ILCS § 5/11a.
3.    Attached is a declaration, Exhibit A, from one of the elder sisters, Ms. Bakken,    attesting to the fact that she was not served in accordance with 755 ILCS § 5/11a    (f).
4.    Attached hereto is a second declaration, Exhibit B, from the undersigned adult daughter Ms.    Gloria Sykes (“Gloria”) attesting to the fact that she was not served any Notice of    Hearing on Petition as provided for in 755 ILCS § 5/11a(f).
1.    The case, In re Sodini, (cite) (Exhibit C, hereto), makes it clear that these notices are    jurisdictional in nature and must be served strictly in compliance with the procedure    set forth by the Illinois State Legislature. In Sodini, the adult sisters were not served with proper notice and the case was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. (Cite).

2.    WHEREFORE, I respectfully request that
a.    The above cause of action be dismissed/non suited for lack of jurisdiction;
b.    All orders, including an Order to invalidate Ms. Gloria Sykes’ Power of Attorney be voided Ab Initio.
c.    All orders freezing Gloria’s assets be voided Ab Initio
d.    Mary be allowed to freely return to her home.
e.    Carolyn Toerpe be barred from conducting any mental or psychological examination on Mary G. Sykes.
f.    Carolyn Toerpe be permanently barred from ever filing an Illinois CCP 211 or its equivalent until further order of the court and for good cause shown, bearing in mind she instigated, continued and fomented a Probate Cause lacking jurisdiction since December 7, 2009 or nearly three (3) years, causing great harm, stress and hardship to Mary G. Sykes and her immediate family;
g.    And for any additional relief and remedies deemed proper by this honorable court.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

_______________________________
Gloria J. Sykes, Daughter, an interested party
to Respondent, Mary G. Sykes
Prepared By:
Gloria Jean Sykes
6016 N. Avondale Ave
Chicago, IL 60631
Phone: 773-910-3310
email: gloami@msn.com

A letter from Ken to Mr Moossy, Head of Civil Rights Division

Posted on July 31, 2012 by Joanne M Denison

Mr. Moossy is the head of the US department of Justice Civil Rights Division. Ken wrote him a letter on July 31, 2012 to bring to his attention the “cavalier dismissal of the Request for an honest investigation” regarding the Sykes case. Below are links to two PDFs containing the contents of this letter.

sykesblog–moossy-ltr-jul31-civ.rights

sykesblog–moossy-ltr-jul31-civ.rights2

Carolyn Toerpe VS Gloria Sykes 7/13/2012

Posted on July 31, 2012 by Joanne M Denison

Below is a link to the full transcript of the proceeding on 7/13/2012 between Carolyn and Gloria in eviction court.

Carolyn vs Gloria-Carolyn FOUND IN CONTEMPT OF COURT. TRANSCRIPT

It is clear that this Judge clearly understands that what Carolyn and Fred Toerpe have done IS WRONG. Here are some highlights in the transcript:

Page 24: Attorney Soehlig does not want to cross examine Gloria.

Page 32: Judge Garber makes the decision that Fred Toerpe’s actions are wrong.

Page 52: Carolyn Toerpe’s testimony starts

Page 60: Judge Garber grants the rule to show cause and found Toerpe in contempt of the court order:’You are not the Gestapo here, m a’am. You’re not to make the decision when the Judge has already made the decision where she can move.”

He reminds her of the contempt later on.

For Cynthia Farenga–Motion to Dismiss/Non Suit for Lack of Sodini Jurisdiction

Posted on July 31, 2012 by Joanne M Denison

Dear Readers;

Below inline and via a link you can find the entitled motion I sent to Cynthia today.

We are all hoping she will file this motion and do the right thing.

If it were me, I would hate to do it, but I would do it. I have had to do this before, and it’s a killer thing to do, but an atty has to explain to the client why s/he will dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, and then do it.

It’s horrible. It’s a do over or start again, but it MUST be done.

Let’s wait and see what happens. If she does it, it will most likely be the end of this blog.

JoAnne

PS – if Cynthia does not do it, I will send another to Gloria and then to Kathy and then to whomever is an “interested party” to attack that jurisdiction. This is a serious, constitutional, due process flaw in the case ab initio.

PPS – the link:

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwTmJQdU5IU1dPYkU

link to exhibits:

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwbE9CQmNhelBnQjg

Attorney Code _____________

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
COUNTY DEPARTMENT, PROBATE DIVISION

In Re the Estate of

Mary G. Sykes,
An Alleged Disabled

No.: 09 P 4585
Hon. Jane Louise Stuart

NOTICE OF EMERGENCY MOTION
To: See attached service list:

Please take notice, that on _August 1, 2012, the undersigned will appear before the Honorable Judge Jane Louis Stuart or any judge sitting in her stead in the courtroom usually occupied by her in Room 1814 of the Richard J Daley Center, Chicago, Illinois, and present the attached EMERGENCY MOTION TO DISMISS/NON SUIT FOR LACK OF SODINI JURISDICTION, and true and correct copes of which are attached hereto and served upon you.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

_______________________________
Cynthia Farenga
Guardian Ad Litem
Prepared By:

Cynthia R. Farenga
1601 Sherman Ave, Suite 200
Evanston, IL 60201
Phone 847 475-1300
Fax 847 866 8885
cfarenga@comcast.net
Attorney Code #14,867

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
COUNTY DEPARTMENT, PROBATE DIVISION

In Re the Estate of

Mary G. Sykes,
An Alleged Disabled

No.: 09 P 4585
Hon. Jane Louise Stuart

EMERGENCY
MOTION TO DISMISS/NON SUIT FOR LACK OF SOLDINI
JURISDICTION/LACK OF PROPER NOTICE OF HEARING ON
PETITION FOR GUARDIANSHIP

This motion is brought by Guardian ad Litem Cynthia Farenga (“Farenga”) pursuant to Probate Code 735 755 ILCS § 5/11a(f) requiring written Notice for any Hearing on Guardianship be provided by the Petitioner in the matter to all close relatives (as defined by the Probate Act) and served no less than 14 days in advance of the hearing. The onE and only necessary ground for this motion is that Petitioner, Carolyn Toerpe, and her attorneyS of record, failed to serve ANY close relatives as required under this Probate Code section with ANY written form of notice 14 days in advance of the hearing date, as declared in the attached pleadings recently brought to my attention.
The grounds for this motion are:
1.    The Illinois Probate Act 755 ILCS § 5/11a:
(f) Notice of the time and place of the hearing shall be given by the petitioner by mail or in person to those persons, including the proposed guardian, whose names and addresses appear in the petition and who do not waive notice, not less than 14 days before the hearing. 755 ILCS § 5/11a. (Emphasis added).
2.    The Illinois Probate Act define the required notice be served upon adult children    and siblings of the Respondent. In the above case, Mary G. Sykes has two adult    sisters, Ms. Yolanda Bakken and Ms. Josephine DiPietro, as well as a daughter    Gloria Sykes who should have been served under 755 ILCS § 5/11a.
3.    Attached is a declaration, Exhibit A, from one of the elder sisters, Ms. Bakken,    attesting to the fact that she was not served in accordance with 755 ILCS § 5/11a    (f).
4.    Attached hereto is a second declaration, Exhibit B, from the adult daughter Ms.    Gloria Sykes (“Gloria”) attesting to the fact that she was not served any Notice of    Hearing on Petition as provided for in 755 ILCS § 5/11a(f).
1.    The case, In re Sodini, (cite) (Exhibit C, hereto), makes it clear that these notices are    jurisdictional in nature and must be served strictly in compliance with the procedure    set forth by the Illinois State Legislature. In Sodini, the adult sisters were not served with proper notice and the case was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. (Cite).

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

_______________________________
Cynthia Farenga, GAL to Mary G. Sykes

Prepared By:
Cynthia R. Farenga
1601 Sherman Ave, Suite 200
Evanston, IL 60201
Phone 847 475-1300
Fax 847 866 8885
cfarenga@comcast.net

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned herewith certifies that a copy of the foregoing Pleading entitled MOTION TO DISMISS/NON SUIT FOR LACK OF SOLDINI JURISDICTION/LACK OF PROPER NOTICE OF HEARING ON PETITION FOR GUARDIANSHIP was served upon the following parties on this ___ day of July, 2012 by the methods noted below:

Mr. Adam M. Stern
111 W Washington St, #1861
Chicago, IL 60602 via USPS first class mail (postage prepaid) and email

Mr. Peter Schmeidel
Ms. Deborah Soehlig
Fischel & Kahn Ltd
190 S. La Salle St, E 2850
Chicago, IL 60603
via USPS first class mail (postage prepaid) and email

Ms. Gloria Sykes
6014 N. Avondale Ave
Chicago, IL 60631 via USPS first class mail (postage prepaid) and email

___________________________
Cynthia R Farenga

From Gloria–a good explanation of the start of the case.

Posted on July 28, 2012 by Joanne M Denison

In this email, Gloria explains a number of obvious mis steps and bias against her and her mother by the GAL’s from the very beginning. The GAL’s were never impartial, but showed clear bias.

Oh Scott, it gets better. Adam Stern just happened to be sitting in the courtroom in Cynthia Farenga’s absense and Judge Connors, who after she admits she doesn’t have the file on the Petition for the Order of Protection (and the only reason Aunt Yo, Aunt Jo, Scott, Dorris, Suzie and I were present on August 26, 2009, was to support mother in obtaining the protection order against Carolyn Toerpe), and notes on the record that mother was not served and is not present, appoints Stern to (1) procure all of the police reports on Toerpe and to investigate mother’s assets (for a reverse mortgage because Toerpe said Mother had no money to live in her home). The odd this is, that before Toerpe started to financially exploit mother to the extent that she is the Plenary Guardian, et al, Mother lived comfortably in her home. The mortgage was paid on time every month, property taxes and insurances were paid, phone was paid, electric was paid, gas, et al, and Mother ate well, and we traveled the United States together….. Mother was so active in the Community that out precious moments together were first thing in the morning when we walked out pooches, and from dinner time until we walked the pooches at 10 pm or so each night. Looking back and reading the verified court transcripts, the Guardianship appointment of Toerpe was a done deal on June 30, 2009 when Toerpe kiddnapped Mother from the Harrision Street courthouse and took her out of state and hid her and kept her out of Illinois so she couldn’t pursue the protective order. Neither Adam Stern or Cynthia Farenga were ever at Mother’s home and Toerpe made certain that she took Mother to Farenga’s office.. as well as all the court friendly doctors who signed fradulant CCP211 reports where Toerpe signed PhD after her name.

Once Cynthia Farenga showed up on the 30 August 2009, she believed Toerpe had mother medicated enough, or enough undue influence was perpetrated on the 90 year old woman, that Mother would coward, but she didn’t. She corrected Adam Stern when Stern went on a rampage accusing me of abusing her, and then when Farenga told the Court the same, Mother stood up to all of them and spoke her mind. Mother has never wavered, and so, Cynthia Farenga, Adam Stern and Peter Schmiedel hired Dr. G. Shaw to testify that mother is not only incompetent now, but she was also incompetent and unable to handle her affairs on October 18, 2008, or so. This testimony is in complete opposition to Dr. Patel’s medical reports where he clearly told Toerpe he would not sign the CCP211 because my mother instructed him not to. That my mother ‘makes sense’ out of any topic” and can “communicate on any subject matter”.

But let’s go one step forward, the Court orders Toerpe has to bring mother home on September 4, 2009 and Toerpe, knowing that I’m fixing up my back yard, yes my back yard at 6016 for a huge welcome home holiday party for mother, calls me and tells me she will be bringing mother home early, but in about one hour. But Toerpe is already in the home (6014) and she drove her daughter’s car just so I wouldn’t notice that she’s already there. But her plan is thwarted because I have ‘workers’ around the house, and he sees Carolyn through mother’s kitchen window as he is fixing a leak on the exterior faucet. Toerpe then calls me and demands I tell her who the “black man” is along side the house! I immediately return to 6014 and find Toerpe in the refrigerator, looking through food which I just bought for the party. Toerpe tells me that she will buy all of mother’s medications at Walgreens (and mother can no longer get her medications from her neighborhood pharmacy where she and Daddy have gone for over 30 years!). Mom and I hug, but mom is very quiet and looks sickly — she’s lost a lot of weight.

Then Toerpe walks mother out to my backyard as if mother is a cripple, and she she leaves, Mother tell me that she doesn’t want to go over to Carolyn’s home any more: that it’s weird over there. I go back to the home and watch Toerpe get into Kristin’s car, and all Toerpe has are her purse and keys. Toerpe didn’t bring any of mother’s beautiful summer clothes I bought Mom back with her, and even kept all of the winder clothes including coats and jackets Toerpe took from Mother’s home in August. Cynthia Farenga said to make a list and she would get the clothes back, but Farenga never planned on getting mother’s property back from Toerpe because she had already agreed to Toerpe’s payment plan for Farenga’s services.

I can go on and on, but I ask Cynthia Farenga to provide the States Attorney’s office with the following documents and evidence:

(1) That I had just purchased a ‘flashy new Lexis”

(2) That I had gone bankrupt twice.

(3) That I dictated the letter mother wrote on September 20, 2009 and the letter

Mother asked Cynthia to give to the Judge.

(4) That Yolanda Bakken slapped Toerpe in the face and tried to kidnap Mother in August 2009 when visiting on a court order.

(5) That Scott Evans wrote the Toerpes a threatening letter.

(6) That Doris Evans is a threat to Mother’s well being

(7) That I abused my mother and,

(8) That I financially exploited my mother.

Then I ask Cynthia Farenga to provide the court with Mother’s bank statements from 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 as ordered by the Court and provide proof of the $26,000 she took from mother in 2006 and set up a joint savings account in Toerpe and my mother’s name: then of course, proof that there was a CD or a IRA account opened in January 2009 with the $4000 Toerpe took from mother’s bank account. Then prove to the States Attorneys office that Toerpe didn’t double pay the mortgage in July, August, September, October, November and December of 2009 so it would appear that Mother had no money in 2009!!!..

I can go on with request but this is a start. Until you prove all of the above Cynthia Farenga, I think that you have a problem on your hands. Of course, you believe you are immune from any lawsuits, but I got a feeling that if one person from the State’s Attorney’s office is just a little interested in proving me wrong, they’ll check it out. What they will find is that Toerpe’s been stealing money from my mother for a very long time and it’s because my mother caught her in Feb. 2009, Toerpe set a course to take control of mother’s person and finances to cover up her crimes. Then lucky Toerpe, she hired a lawless attorney who would murder his own mother for money as he ripped off seniors in Indiana on remodeling and reverse mortgages: then Harvey Jack Waller was blessed to have you Cynthia Farenga appointed and now I’m back to the beginning of the case.

The question is Cynthia Farenga, in absence of any evidence as you have none to your malicious allegations, how do you continue to get away with these crimes against the elderly, disabled, and all people the elderly and disabled trust and love? That said, I know your husband and once in a while you buy and sell estates of Wards of Cook County, and your husband Michael Crowley does your dirty work and serves fraudulent documents on people’s financial advisors and institutions, and you had me served with a Pizza Flyer, too, but who do you sleep at night? Your daughter appears to be a lovely young woman (the internet is great for ***). Does she know who you really are? Does she know that you lie, cheat, steal and will murder in order to earn your living off of the elderly, disabled and all people who stand up for the truth and justice?

So Scott, if there were one person at the Illinois States Attorneys office willing to steal across the LINE Cynthia Farenga drew in the sand (as she keeps moving is), I know for a fact that soon after the investigation there would be a grand jury asking Carolyn Toerpe some serious questions. I know that Toerpe, however will coward and she will turn Cynthia Farenga, Adam Stern and Peter Schmiedel in as they are orchestrating all of this by using our courts as their weapons of choice.

But now I’m way a head of myself. Let’s go back to the court transcripts ……

FYI the Court Reporter from the date Kevin Salam testified refuses to call me back and the Official court reporter’s office cannot help me get the transcripts from Salam’s testimony. Similarly it took six months-for me to get the transcripts format eh Domestic Relations court in and regarding the petition for an order of protection naming Carolyn Toerpe.. That said, the records are available for any one to read and they are a good read.

FYI Ya got three days to turn over the documents Cynthia Farenga as I am prepared to publish an article — If you have any of this evidence, and proof of course of the Sodini requirements met, you may be able to prove your claims as I always give both sides of the story. As it is, the transcripts and court docket show exactly what I and other people, including Ditkowsky have said. You, Cynthia Farenga are a liar and a fraud — well, those are my words. I will retract and apologize once I have the above documents and records in the hands of the Illinois States Attorney — and available or the public to examine.

Have a beautiful day all. I have just started… Watch me!

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

(edited only for typos and grammar)

My fax to Diane Saltoun, Executive Directior at the Illinois Atty General

Posted on July 28, 2012 by Joanne M Denison

See below. This fax was accompanied by my famous “Table of Torts” and the Probate Docket table of missing court orders, pleadings and transcripts that won’t be transcribed (note, I never said “can’t”). Those are posted on my page of “Important Documents” and I note more than half the probate file is missing and apparently has been “cleansed”. GDS bless my scanner!

In line is below, or click for the link.

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwcnNGSXZuZU9La1k

I want to make this easy peasy for everyone!

FAX TRANSMITTAL SHEET
To: Diane Saltoun
Executive Inspector General
IAG
fax 312-814-8444

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 S. Sieburg, associate, of counsel
Marianne Buckley, associate, of counsel

For transmission problems, please call 312-553-1300
A confirmation copy WILL ✔ will NOT be sent.
Pages in fax, including this coversheet – ( see fax header )
July 27, 2012

Re: In re Estate of Mary Sykes, 09 P 4585

Dear Diane;

While the above case has a long, long history, much of which is documented on a blog to be found at http://www.marygsykes.com, the reality of the situation is that this probate proceeding boils down to garden variety theft, embezzlement, malpractice and malfeasance by attorneys and the court. The court has clearly, for 3 long years, been working without subject matter jurisdiction. In probate court, the Illinois legislature has stated in the Sodini case that in order to take jurisdiction, the court must ensure the following requirements have been met that notice on any hearing for incompetency: 1) be in writing; 2) that the Petitioner serve the notice; 3) that the notice contain the time, date and place of the hearing; and 4) that the notice be served upon “close relatives”–ie, adult children and siblings.

In the above case, the Guardians ad Litem, Cynthia Farenga and Adam Stern will admit that no proper written notice was ever served in the case and/or they cannot produce proof of service at all. In one transcript (all transcripts are published on the blog), counsel for the Guardian admitted no Sodini notices were served upon “close relatives.” Judge Connors knew at the time she was appointing the plenary guardian, Carolyn Toerpe, without proper notice being served, and Judge Stuart has admitted in her written notes on pleadings that it is “too late” to contest subject matter jurisdiction, which is utter nonsense since subject matter jurisdiction can be brought up at any time–even on appeal.

To add to the obvious corruption, cronyism, embezzlement (there is estimated to be $1 million in gold and silver coins missing from Mary’s estate), when another attorney (Ken Ditkowsky) and myself complained about the lack of jurisdiction, the railroading of the proceeding without discovery–one of the GAL’s has filed ARDC complaints against us–merely for calling for an investigation. Leah Black at the ARDC is handling that and has not given up. The proceeding against Ken Ditkowsky is clearly another railroaded proceeding built upon corruption and cronyism and Leah Black has done nothing to clean up the court system.

See the attached “table of torts” the miscreants have engaged in. See the attached list of missing files and know that more than half the file is missing because all of the appellate volumes are gone.

Someone is systematically cleansing the Probate files and Judge Evans and security is doing NOTHING about it.

No response.

And then when I go to court to blog about the case and the corruption and cronyism, the miscreants have the court bailiff tell me not to use or open my laptop!

When I first contacted your offices regarding corruption in the courts at the Daley Center you said you “needed proof” actual proof of corruption.

I don’t see how 70% of the file missing PLUS the lack of subject matter jurisdiction could establish any less proof to conduct an investigation.

And I know your buddies at the FBI could look at this case in minutes and come up with a determination that the plenary Guardian is spending tens of thousands of dollars on house remodeling and a fancy wedding for her daughter, whereas back in Jan of 2009 she was struggling with bills and her husband was out of work. All we need is an asset search done in 2009-2012 for Carolyn and Fred Toerpe.

What more evidence do you need?

I will continue to publish the blog speaking out against corruption in our court system.

Please look at the attached and all the information I will fax you shortly. This is a case that could be bigger than Greylord–what is being done to deprive grandma and grandpa of their civil rights and how the Probate court (routinely) operates.

Very Truly Yours,

DENISON & ASSOCS, PC

JoAnne Denison

JoAnne M. Denison

cc: Ken Ditkowsky and http://www.marygsykes.com blog.

Answer to a Question from Scott Evans and the significance of lacking jurisdiction/Sodini notices

Posted on July 28, 2012 by Joanne M Denison

Question from Scott Evans:

Gloria,

That was an excellent recap of the first few months of the case. It is chilling to read.

It begs the question, something Tim said a year ago, about going back to the beginning.

Are there Court actions that can be entered into given the string of not just technically wrong, but completely incorrect actions by the opposing lawyers?

I bring it up because of all the emphasis on the Sodini aspect of the relatives not being properly noticed, events which followed the ones you just wrote about by only several months. To me, they appear to be more provable, more serious, more compelling, more powerful than Sodini. Do these glaring gaffs that you refer to have a name, a case law background?

Since Sodini can be brought up almost 3 years after the fact, can’t these other issues?

I did a REPLY ALL on this in order to garner wider responses and ideas. ~Scott

Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2012 10:35:48 -0700
From: kenditkowsky@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Sykes Case Jurisdiction
To: scottcevans@hotmail.com; joanne@denisonlaw.com
CC: elaine@abusiveguardianships.com; glduncan@bellsouth.net; michiganadvocacyproject@gmail.com; lisabokesch@aol.com; k_bakken@att.net; timlahrman@aol.com

The significance of Sodini is jurisdiction. Without jurisdiction everything done in the Sykes case is void. The guardian ad litem are ‘de facto’ and therefore as there is no guardianship their actions are unauthorized. As there is no jurisdiction their is no guardian ship. No guardianship means that the drilling of the safety deposit box was not authorized and was a garden variety larceny by trick. Citatons to discover assets are also ‘ultra vires’ and therefore all this nonsense of questioning Gloria as to her assets, seizing her assets is just garden variety common law fraud, theft, false imprisonment and criminal contempt of court.

Similarly the non-inventory of the assets removed from the safety deposit box is theft! In addition as the mails were used to commit the fraud our friends are guilty of 18 USCA 1341 (mail fraud). There are least two predicate action and therefore the government can charge each with RICO. Of course, theft as well as breach of fiduciary relationship are taxable events. All of our friends are guilty of conspiracy to evade the United States Income taxes Carolyn is guilty of tax fraud.

Keeping Mary against her will is kidnapping on the criminal side and false imprisonment on the civil side.

On the other hand, had the Sodini notices been given the guardians have 100% absolute immunity. Farenga and Stern have discretion as to what they report to the Court, and the Court can issue ‘wrong and unjust orders’ until the cows come home. Sodini is the lynch pin!

With two of the three necessary close relatives filing affidavits that they did not receive the 14 day notices required to obtain jurisdiction over Mary and her estate any judge who takes his/her duties seriously would order an investigation. Most judges do not like to enter orders that are beyond their jurisdiction.

What makes this case the ‘son of greylord’ is the fact that every judge has had the jurisdictional issue raised and each avoided the issue liket he plague. The lawyers who are presumed to know the law admit that the Sondini protections were not afforded to Mary and ‘no one cares.’ An honest investigation would find out why the Judges are reluctant to determine if they had jurisdiction! An honest investigation would require Carolyn to produce the inventory that Mary kept in the safety deposit box. An honest investigation would find out why Farenga, Stern, Schmiedel, et al. are so afraid to participate in the investigation and why they mislead the Court on a regular basis. An honest investigation would look into Judge Connors dates in December 2009.

Sodini goes back to Day One. If Sodini was not complied with each of the guardians (including the GALs) is guilty of theft etc.
from Atty Ken Ditkowsky

From Atty Ditkowsky to GAL Atty Cynthia Farenga

Posted on July 28, 2012 by Joanne M Denison

A CALL FOR A COMPLETE INVESTIGATION

Ms. Farenga,

I thought about your last e-mail this morning and it occurred to me that you actually might not know that the Sykes case is not only a serious matter, but, an innocent senior citizen has in fact been deprived of her liberty, property, civil and human rights. Indeed, it is possible that you might not know that the Illinois Legislature enacted the statute described and interpreted by Sodini to protect against exactly the type of situation that has occurred in Sykes. (Indeed, it appears that jurisdictional protections appear to be honored by non-compliance in many cases such as Tyler, Wyman, etc – the GAO report of September last confirms this theory)

The problem that you face – or will face is the fact that like Justice Sotomeyer the public is getting ‘sick and tired’ of lawyers claiming innocence for bad deeds that are clearly prohibited by statute. Too often Judges have stated when confronted by a lay person – “ignorance of the law is not excuse!” Members of the 2nd oldest profession also use the excuse of I did not know the law and other members are sympathetic as they impose strict standards on the public. The Sykes’ treatment of Gloria Sykes is an example. Thus, while you, Stern, and Schmiedel ‘cut corners’ and act under color of statute to deprive Gloria and others of their civil rights you and the Court demand that people like Gloria Sykes strictly comply with the Rules. Want an example? You, Adam, and Schmiedel were well aware when you filed the sanction motion against me that the Court had no jurisdiction! The net was you wasted your time, my time and the Court’s time. Further you will spend hundreds of hours in defending a very viable civil rights suit that could result in a seven figure verdict against you personally.

A second example is the Sykes case itself. You, Stern, and Schmiedel are well aware that the Petition to appoint Carolyn as plenary guardian is defective, and that the required jurisdictional notices were never written or mailed. Thus, as a matter of law the Probate Court for over three years has operated without jurisdiction. The ‘cover-up’ is the Son of Greylord and ultimately will result in some sort of serious prosecution of the culpable. How could you not know of the jurisdictional problem? Justice Sotomeyer’s decision in Jerman answers the question – you are presumed to know the law and that presumption is very strong. Clout only works for a short period of time – it works until the ‘clout’ is required to account. All that said, Gloria Sykes and Mary Sykes have a very viable civil rights suit. [as the court has no jurisdiction there is no immunity and what would be absolute immunity for you as a GAL does not exist in the Sykes case]

There are many more examples of the Sykes guardian and guardian ad litem acting sans jurisdiction. An injunction was entered without the prior filing of a verified petition and without the mandatory bond. The citation proceeding is flawed! You as a seasoned lawyer owe a duty to the ‘ward’ and to the ‘court’ to prevent such misconduct. You have a great deal of temerity even suggesting that you are an innocent and that the only misconduct that you know of is that of Gloria Sykes. Such a rationalization is obscene!

A while back – after the decision of the Appellate Court throwing out the sanction for lack of jurisdiction – I offered you the simple proposition (Safe Harbor e-mails) of you reporting the facts to the Court in exchange for my just forgetting about the Civil Rights remedy that I am entitled. Your rejected the proposition. This of course was your right. I called upon you to join with me and call for an honest, complete, and comprehensive investigation of the Sykes case – if you had nothing to hide. Again you and Stern rejected the call. A simple review of the facts, the docket, the transcripts of the Sykes case and the reason for the rejection is obvious.

No, I am not going to make any more offers of settlement – I have written law enforcement and others demanding a full complete and honest investigation. Mary Sykes is in her 4th year of captivity. Over a million dollars in her assets have not been accounted for and certainly not inventoried. (For the record – I was Mary’s attorney and wrote up her will – I know what her estate consisted of and I know exactly how many double eagles she had and what they were worth – I could care less whether the guardian – who had the safety deposit box drilled shared with you and Stern the ‘booty!’ By your e-mails and non-action you have aided and abetted Income tax evasion) I am appealing to you as a human being to reach out to Gloria Sykes and the organizations that support Mary Sykes and ‘free Mary Sykes!’ Join with Ms. Denison, and the organizations that support Mary and Gloria Sykes and request a complete honest and comprehensive investigation of not only the Sykes case, but all the cases in which similar events as have occurred in Sykes are rampant!

Right now you are ‘young’ and do not face the avarice that many senior citizens are confronted. Instead of finding themselves in the bosom of loving families, they are confronted by children who cannot wait for grandma to die before seeking to loot her estate. Even more troubling is the appearance Cynthia Farenga and Adam Stern who aid and abet the scenario and when confronted by the consequences of *** come forth with ” Gloria did it!” The climate that you helped create is a cancer and will be something that you most probably will personally confront in your household as you have demonstrated to your children and grandchildren that it is OK to deny grandma her liberty, her property, her civil rights and human rights. Newton point out that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction and this is one of the primary laws of nature. Today we recite the law by – ‘what goes around comes around’

Thus, the joining with me, Denison, Sykes and the Anti Elder Abuse organizations in calling for an honest investigation of the Sykes case you act in your own best long term interests. Even at this point in time – doing the ‘right thing’ will provide you with great benefits; however, ***** The decision is yours and we all will fight the death to preserve your right to act inappropriately and in derogation of your own best interests.

Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

And I need to add that Ms. Farenga, you need to do an Emergency Motion for Tuesday to non suit this Probate case due to lack of jurisdiction, attach YB’s declaration and Gloria’s declaration, although I’m sure Gloria will be there in court and Ken and I will be glad to draft up the order for you, and serve the Motion by personal service on each of the adult siblings and children as Illinois Probate Law dictates, and LET MARY GO FREE back to her own home! You know there is no jurisdiction, AS knows there is no jurisdiction. Perhaps the other sister’s affidavit will be in my mail today, I’ll go check. Gloria will just testify. Hopefully it won’t last an hour as she lambasts you and AS for your outrageous behavior!

Please draft the motion and personally serve it on Monday to all the adult children and siblings of Mary Sykes.

Ken, we need calls to Non Suit on an emergency basis and get the FBI/police to investigate bank accounts. Where are the gold coins!

String of Emails between Ken and Cynthia tells it all…..

Posted on July 28, 2012 by Joanne M Denison

Dear Readers;

Something has happened that I never thought would happen, and that is a string of emails between Atty-GAL Cynthia Farenga and Atty Ken Ditkowsky!

I simply cannot believe that CF, a clearly ethics challenged atty is writing KD, an attorney that has been clamouring for an investigation since he first became aware of the Sykes Probate case 09 P 4858 and noted many problems with the case 1) an excellent long term care giver (Gloria) was chosen as guardian over a barely there, somewhat estranged sister (Carolyn), 2) the case was railroaded with a clearly deficient Petition not naming all close relatives (I just got a case like that and the response was oh well–oh well nothing, it’s jurisdictional, babe and an extremely serious fatal deficiency); 3) no discovery,e ven though discovery was asked for; 4) claims of gold coins being in the estate, safe deposit boxes drilled out and looted even though the Plenary Guardian knew that another sister’s name was one it—-oh go see my table of torts for further information of a long history of irregularities in the case.
So please read on below. Cynthia is amazing in wondering and worrying about this blog. The information on it is growing. On Monday I should have up a page of “Important Documents and Evidence against the Miscreants” which will have things like my Table of Torts, the Declaration of Sister 1 saying there were no Sodini notices, etc.

My advice to you Cynthia (and this goes for Adam, the other GAL) is to waltz your butt into court on Tuesday with an emergency motion served to Gloria and the sisters by fax, email and personal delivery (yeah, pay the $50 to get the motion out to the burbs where these ladies live or drive them out yourself and apologize like a big girl) to nonsuit/dismiss and attach the petitions of Sister 1 and Gloria and ask the case be nonsuited because there is no jurisdiction. There is absolutely no proof in the file that attorney Harvey Waller served Sodini notices, which are jurisdictional with the following 4 elements 1) it must be in writing; 2) it must be served on close relatives (adult siblings and children); 3) it must state the time, date and place of hearing and 3) It must be served by Petitioner 14 days in advance of the hearing. None of this was done. The GALs are supposed to attend to these details. You and GAL Stern did not. 3 years of this nonsense against Gloria and her mother who do want to be together.
My advice to you is to nonsuit the case and join KD and myself in calling for further investigation and a complete asset search of CT. Heck, do Gloria too and it will show she is not the miscreant in all of this. It will take an FBI officer minutes to look at bank accounts statements, balances, etc. over the last two years. How did Carolyn pay for her daughter’s fancy wedding and finish up remodeling her house when she is a retired school teacher and her husband was out of work for years? Pull the tax returns from the IRS and do a comparison!

Your job was and still is to ask questions and protect Mary.
You seriously failed in that. But don’t wallow in pity–get going!

JoAnne

—–Original Message—–
From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Jul 27, 2012 2:29 PM
To: “cfarenga@comcast.net”
Subject: Re: Assorted

It is interesting that you think you did not do anything wrong. You did and continue to do quite a bit wrong. As an attorney and as a ‘human being’ you should know what you did wrong. The first thing you did wrong was to have denied Mary Sykes her liberty, her property, her civil rights and her human rights.

Please allow me to be more specific. [KD response start] The Statute requires that prior to a guardian ship proceeding being held Mary Sykes and all her close relatives are entitled to a written 14 day notice. As an attorney you should be aware of this jurisdictional criterion. Thus, it appears that the Probate Court lacks jurisdiction. The de-facto appointment of Carolyn Troepe is therefore flawed. I trust that you are aware that this makes certain actions undertaken not only questionable but patently illegal. As an example how could Mary (and Gloria’s) safety deposit box be drilled and the content’s removed. The contents included jewelry and collectibles. I estimate the value at over a million dollars. As this million dollars was not inventoried it appears that someone other than Gloria dis something wrong. It also appears that the total isolation of Mary from her sister and her daughter were also wrong. [KD response start]The aiding and abetting this conduct was also wrong and in my opinion makes you and Adam Stern Accessories during the fact. If you want details read the ADA complaint filed in Federal Court.

[KD response con’t]Of serious concern are your statements concerning Gloria Sykes. You cannot point to a single act of hers that was wrong. As a citizen – you know one of those little people protected by the Federal and State Constitutions – she has every right to resist the attempts by you (plural) to deprive her of her liberty, her property and her civil rights. The reason I am adamant in my defense of Gloria and Mary is the simple fact that I believe in the principles of American democracy! I would be such as vigorous in defending and standing up for your rights! If you had done a scintilla of due diligence you would have discovered that Gloria had a serious insurance claim. Lumberman (Kempers) denied the claim and she sued. After years litigation they offered her and she accepted a settlement. As Mary was placed on the title by Gloria to complete her estate Mary was as an afterthought brought into the Lumberman case. Mary had and has no interest in the property as she has (had) her own home and therefore with the aid of an attorney she signed away her share of the settlement. As Gloria would say – the statements that you made to the Court were all intentional and knowing untruths (lies).

I do not care if you pay the taxes due for the breach of fiduciary relationship, nor do I give a damn if you got dime one of the ‘loot’ from Mary’s estate. I will leave it to law enforcement to figure out you culpability.

You keep making statements about the corruption in the judiciary. As you are constantly upon on the 18th Floor, you must have knowledge of who, what and where. As my practice is general I would not be privy to whether or not your allegations of corruption are true or false. I do know however the the Sykes case has a massive jurisdictional problem. The entire guardianship fiasco in Sykes is clearly without jurisdiction. Gloria and her aunts were not served with the 14 written notice. Gloria has filed an affidavit to that effect, and I am informed that Aunt Jo has also provided an affidavit. Mr.Stern in an e-mail disclosed that in lieu of written notice he, you, and Ms.Troepe agreed that Mary should have a guardian. Mr.Schmiedel is quoted in the transcripts as pointing out the application for a guardian was also deficient and no written notices were sent out.

On a level playing field a Judge first checks to see if he/she has jurisdiction and then if he/she does not it is ‘game over!’ Why this has not occurred in Sykes is a mystery. It should not be as the Sykes case has two Guardian ad litem who are aware that the jurisdictional criterion has not been met and each has a duty to report that fact to the Court. It would seem to me that that failure is not only wrongful but a serious breach of fiduciary relationship on you part. You are not alone however – Mr.Schmiedel as an officer of the Court and Mr. STern as a guardian ad litem also are culpable.

If there is a word that you do not understand, Ms. Sykes can explain it to you. I understand that she was an elementary school teacher in another life. Your ‘clever’ repartee is not appreciated. The Sykes case is a serious matter. A senior citizen has been isolated from her family, her activities, her friends and her life with the aid of two guardian ad litem. This same senior citizen has had too many trips to the emergency room and too little contact with her former life. There is serious question as to whether this senior citizen was incompetent – it is my believe that she was indeed competent but railroaded by clearly unconscionable means into the loss of her liberty.

Ms. Farenga – if you had a scintilla of ‘good faith’ you would join with me in requesting law enforcement to do an honest, complete and comprehensive investigation of the Sykes case.

Ken Ditkowsky

http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/

From: “cfarenga@comcast.net” <cfarenga@comcast.net>
To: kenneth ditkowsky <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 12:42 PM
Subject: Re: Assorted

Dear Ken,
I know that you believe your friends throughout every level of law enforcement will soon be at our doorstep. I happen not to believe that since as far as I can tell, the only one who may have acted inappropriately is Gloria. I note you did not answer the question of why you are so eager to protect Gloria when Mary was allegedly your client.Just what is it about Gloria that impels you to violate your ethical duty to Mary in the event of even a potential conflict between them? Again, using your own logic, how do we know you all aren’t in a a conspiracy to share any funds that Gloria may recover in this litigation? [KD response start] I have a very viable civil rights (42 USCA 1983) claim against you, Adam Stern and Schmiedel. As you singled me out and filed a sanction motion against me in a Court that lacked jurisdiction – under color of statute you violated my civil rights. That should be a 6 or 7 figure verdict. [KD Response end] Very odd. Only you and JD have been paid, but JD continues to post invoices left and right claiming hundreds of thousands of dollars of fees, yet we are supposed to think that all of your hands are clean? Running a blog is not a legal task. Who is the client that JD proposes to bill upwards of $55k plus interest for running a blog? [KD response start]Why is that any of your business. The use of a Blog and communication is a FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT. It is my understanding that the National Socialists do not have any candidates running in the current election cycle – ergo, their proposed legislation has not been enacted and the Citizens of the State of Illinois are still free to object to the acts of denying a senior citizen of her liberty, her property, civil and human rights. [KD Response end] [JD response—the reason you have not been paid is because you are acting without jurisdiction and engaging in malpractice and malfeasance and breach of fiduciary duty. It’s hard to get paid when you are ultra vires and committing continuing torts on a routine basis.]
You will all continue to run off at the mouth. There will be no nice view of the prison courtyard for us because We have done nothing wrong. The corruption of Greylord proportions, the corruption of the entire probate division, judges and attorneys, the accusations against Judge Evans and Justice Connors–this is all your imagination. JD’s and Gloria’s. One day in court at the beginning of this mes (sic) Gloria told me she’d pay for care giving in order to bring her mother home pending the resolution of the guardianship. She retracted the offer the next day. You can post, email, fax, blog and do whatever, but in the end, I feel sorry for you. There is not a single fact of wrong-doing you have found (as opposed to your made-up accusations), nor will you. There is none. [KD response start]Last I heard, it was a crime to take possession of ‘grandma’s’ property without her consent. Indeed, according to Justice Sotomeyer lawyers are supposed to know the law and to be aware that Court operating without jurisdiction issue void orders! Persons who knowingly act pursuant to void orders get free orange jumpsuits! [KD Response end]
Though I’m busy writing my own book, I feel the need to let you know that we realize these accusations are all phony. In the meantime, when the IRS knocks on my door, I’ll invite them in for tea and crudites, answer their questions and sit them down to read all of the lunatic postings that are on line. I will be glad to pay tax on the income from my book, however. [KD response start]Unfortunately and unhappily the averments that have been made are all true and correct. You can blame Gloria Sykes for the troubles of the world, but that does not solve any of them. My dear friend – if you look in the mirror you will see the person who bears the greatest culpability for Mary Sykes loss of her liberty and her property. You also will see in the same image the person who failed to report vital information to the Court and/or condoned conduct that is deplored by all civilized peoples. I sincerely hope that when the IRS comes calling you can be glib and confident; however *****[KD Response end]

From: “kenneth ditkowsky” <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>
To: cfarenga@comcast.net
Cc: “NASGA” <nasga.org@gmail.com>, “probate sharks” <verenusl@gmail.com>, “JoAnne M Denison” <JoAnne@DenisonLaw.com>, “states attorney” <statesattorney@cookcountyil.gov>, “Cook County Sheriff” <sheriff.dart@cookcountyil.gov>, “GLORIA Jean SYKES” <gloami@msn.com>, “scottevans” <scottcevans@hotmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 7:25:24 PM
Subject: Re: Assorted

Ms Farenga,

Please send me the file that you have from the Secretary of State. The information that I have that in late 2008 or early 2009 Mary and Gloria were going to California and Mary needed her license renewed. She could not do so as it had lapsed. Therefore she was required to take the written as well as the driving test. She passed the written test with flying colors but had to retake the driving portion. It is interesting (but not unusual in Illinois) that this little fact does not appear on the Secretary of State record.

I grieve for you as to your tale of woe having allegedly not been paid. Being part and parcel of the looting of a senior citizens’s estate is a breach of fiduciary relationship and a taxable event. I know what Mary sykes had – remember I did her Will. She discussed her Estate with me and I remember a good amount of detail. I even know the number of gold coins! Your aiding and abetting the non-inventory of the assets of the estate makes you an accessory! I let the US Attorney explain to you the consequences at a proper time and place.

Unfortunately Attorney fees must meet the criterion of being ‘necessary’ and provide some benefit to the ward. The services that you performed were worth absolutely zero to Mary in that:

1) The simple protections that the State affords to Mary – as Mr. Stern reports in an e-mail – were obviated by you, Stern, and Troepe agreeing to appoint Carolyn as the plenary guardian. If you have been reading JoAnne’s postings at this point in time you have been educated to Sodini and know that this technicality is jurisdictional. As you should know – no jurisdiction no ‘cover’ of statute and the ‘loot’ is taxable!

2) you aided a abetted three plus years of abuse to Mary, including an episode that placed Mary in the emergency room having lost ten percent of her body weight.

3) you aided and abetted Mary from having contact with her sister and her younger daughter.

4) you aided and abetted efforts that were calculated to kee Mary from being represented by counsel and having a day in Court. I would call this aiding and abetting the deprivation of Mary Sykes’ liberty interests.

5) you aided an abetted in the ‘rape’ of the civil and human rights of Gloria and Mary Sykes.

As the Court has no jurisdiction (Sodini) you are at best a ‘de facto’ GAL and as such you have no immunity. Of course to the extent that your conduct violates the law you are culpable and have to answer to law enforcement. As to Gloria, JoAnne, and myself at a proper time and place you will answer in damages. (Had you seen that the Sodini protections had been afforded Mary – we would have no remedy against you personally – but using Stern’s words – this “technicalilty” *****

Ms. Farenga – a while back I asked you to join with me and requesting a complete, honest and comprehensive examination by law enforcement of the Sykes and related cases. You and Mr. Stern refused. It should be very clear that you do not have the ability to intimidate Ms. Sykes, Ms. Denison or myself. We are not going away and win, lose or draw before the ARDC and where-ever you choose to complain for you and Mr. Stern (and Ms. Troepe and Mr. Schmiedel) this is not going to end. Ms. Sykes, Ms. Denison and yours truly have no intention of meekly marching in a ‘box card’ to be later herded into the gulag. EVERYONE KNOWS THAT A TERRIBLE WRONG HAS BEEN COMMITTED BY FARENGA, STERN, SCHMIEDEL AND OTHERS WHO HAVE AIDED AND ABETTED THEM in denying Mary Sykes and Gloria Sykes their liberty, their property, their civil rights and human rights.

Tomorrow is a new day – Sykes, Denison and I do not seek revenge or even recrimination – we seek the freeing of Mary Sykes and that she be allowed to live out the few days that she has left in the bosom of those who care for her. How can you as a human being rationalize that Mary has been and is being separated and not allowed contact with her younger daughter and her younger sister! (The million dollars in assets that have been taken from Mary is irrelevant to Gloria, JoAnne. It may not be to the IRS or IDR.

If you recall several years ago Gloria begged you to join with her to free Mary and get Mary out the abusive Gulag! You responded with one of your “Gloria did diatribes.” At that point in time it was no harm, no foul situation however, you rejected Gloria’s magnanimous offer. Too bad.

One more point – I do not know what the United States Department of Treasury’s policy is on those who aid and abet the evasion of Federal Income Taxes; however, I suspect that they will be fair and just.

Ken Ditkowsky

http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/

From: “cfarenga@comcast.net” <cfarenga@comcast.net>
To: kenneth ditkowsky <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 4:05 PM
Subject: Assorted
Ken,
Just as soon as I return from visiting my hositalized relative, I’ll send over the secretary of State’s file on Mary’s driver’s license issue dates and test dates. Presumably you haven’t seen the file, because Mary did not take a test in 2009 and her last license was issued in 2005 (working from memory, or 2006 at the latest).
How ironic that Adam and I have in fact been working without payment of a dime thus far, while you and JoAnne have both stated in open court that you have received fees. JD said she received $20k or $25k. [JD response—and I have also done about $180,000 in work or more to root out corruption—time I could spend on other cases and other matters, while you two fiddle on 3 years in a case without jurisdiction]
You can fabricates more “facts”, as you all will, but I continue to question why you, who once allegedly represented Mary, are so anxious to see that Gloria gets all of the settlement money w/o expressing any reservation. Maybe, Ken, you folks are the ones who have a financial interest in this matter and seeing to it that Mary does not receive any money so that Gloria can.Perhaps you are expecting to share with Gloria? [JD response—that’s inane, KD and I call for an investigation and you do nothing. If we call for an investigation one or all parties can be investigated. We never said only investigate CT. You are twising words] Your theory about Adam and me makes no sense, as we have said before. Adam and I did not know about any alleged money trove, be it gold coins or cash in the mattress and frankly, why would we? Gloria’s OWN cross-petition does not disclose such assets. [JD Response—Gloria has complained over and over and I know I sent you emails about the gold coins and YOU AND AS REPEATEDLY TELL THE COURT “IT IS A FICTION OF GLORIA’S IMAGINATION”, and you do not tell the judge that Ken Ditkowsky, who did the estate planning for the Sykes for years, lists those gold coins in his estate inventory which lists and information are business records and should be brought to the court’s attention for further investigation]

I know that you are imagining these “facts” [JD Response–how do you know that—have you investigated? Nope, not one piece of discovery has been served on Carolyn—and you could have done that back in Jan 2010 and prevented misery for all of us, esp. Carolyn because at that time she could have put them back and not spent them], but I occasionally feel the need to tell you that we know they are demonstrably untrue. And you should be ashamed to be putting the law license of a young lawyer, Annie, in jeopardy, as yours and I would guess JoAnne’s will be [JD Response—this is really interesting, it shows how little CF investigates. Annie is a law clerk and that is on our website. Cynthia, do you ever read anything? Annie will be please tho that you think she writes well enough to be a lawyer. I think her non-lawyer status is clear from her writing, but *****]. Now J has this young woman on the bandwagon commenting on an area of law she seems to have no background in, and parroting JD’s tone when she makes blog entires (sic). You really should be responsible enough to leave this phony expose to yourself and JD and not to stain a young lawyer’s reputation. If you are so sure you’ll be winning a gold medal for your Greylord- like expose, leave her out of it now and promise her the credit in the future. [JD Response–Cynthia, if you don’t do the work and don’t use your own name, then there will be no credit in the future for you. Plus, it is important that if someone writes for the blog, that person is identified. Anyone can write and post anon junk. The web is filled with cyber junk. I encourage integrity. And it’s obvious all you’re trying to do is intimidate and bully around another person–not going to happen, babe. Annie has read the Probate Act end to end and she has read Sodini. If you have something to say to Annie, put it on the blog. But right now you and AS have no jurisdiction to do what you’re doing and the world knows it.]]
CRF
From: “kenneth ditkowsky” <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>
To: “GLORIA Jean SYKES” <gloami@msn.com>, “Tim Lahrman NASGA” <timlahrman@aol.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 11:29:10 AM
Subject: Jurisdiction

The State of Illinois does not have jurisdiction in Gary Indiana, Cleveland Ohio, or even Milwaukee Wisconsin. A subpoena stops at the State line. An Illinois Judge’s order stops at the State line. An Illinois judgment cannot be enforced in Indiana.

Our friends in writing threatening letters to people outside the jurisdiction of the Illinois are acting without any immunity whatsoever and it is my opinion can be prosecuted in the County of the State where the victim resides. It is further my opinion that as the Sodini requirements for jurisdiction to vest in the Circuit Court Probate Division have not been met there is no immunity for their acts even though authorized specifically by a judge’s order. The judge to act as a judge must have jurisdiction. this is the reason most judges make inquiry as to jurisdiction as issue one.

The fact that a guardian ad litem sends an unauthorized subpoena does not vest the Court with jurisdiction over the person. A subpoena must be served and must be served within the territorial jurisdiction of the court.

In re: Sykes is a case for the ages. I have never seen so must ultra vires conduct in any case prior and have never seen so much disconnect on the issue of jurisdiction. Since Jerman the presumption of lawyers knowing the law is in the forefront and all these actions undertaken without jurisdiction are going to have serious consequences.

Ken Ditkowsky

http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/

An Elderly Sister signs a declaration-Proof that the proper Sodini Notices were not SERVED

Posted on July 26, 2012 by Joanne M Denison

An elderly sister of Mary G Sykes has signed and mailed her declaration back to our office stating that she did not receive proper Sodini notice. This is GREAT news because now we are one step closer to proving how corrupt and unjust the case truly is. JoAnne has already faxed copies of this Affidavit to Lea Black. Now we wait anxiously as we wait for Mary’s other elderly sister to mail us back her declaration. Justice MUST prevail!

Below is a copy of the signed declaration!

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwQlFkR05BRk05d28 – (cut and paste if link does not work)

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwQlFkR05BRk05d28

Updates about the Court banning the use of laptops

Posted on July 26, 2012 by Joanne M Denison

A couple of weeks ago, JoAnne Denison sent a fax to Kevin Connelly (Head of security at the Daley Center) and Judge Evans. Just a quick recap, the fax basically talked about Judge Stuart banning the use of laptops in her courtroom, which is a direct violation of everything a democratic society should stand for.

To no one’s surprise, there has been no response to that fax. No explanation, no discussion, nothing. So of course, JoAnne sent another fax to them today. Let’s see how long they will ignore this one (link provided below)!

JoAnne’s fax to Judge Evans

Comments about PURGING OF FILES from Ken and Joanne

Posted on July 26, 2012 by Joanne M Denison

Purging Records is an old Cook County tradition. When I first became a lawyer the Court house was the old County Building. On Floor 3 1/2 like clockwork every single year there were two fires – one on the County side and one on the City side. Each years at approximately the same time the fires occurred and they were confined to one of the two floors.

Today a purge can occur with the click of a mouse!

In these Elder Abuse cases like Sykes there is a great deal at stake. Do your realize that you, I, Gloria, and various assorted relatives will be giving evidence of the United States of America as to the contents of the safety deposit box. As Mary was declared incompetent without a hearing and without the Sodini protections the probate court lacked jurisdiction and once again Stern, Farenga, and Toerpe are out a limb! If I take your money without your permission with the intention of exercising control over the same I commit ‘theft!’ As a million dollars in assets is unaccounted for we have a very serious felony. Aiding and Abeting is not looked upon fondly – in fact law enforcement usually charges the Aider and Abetters.

The Sykes case is ‘big league’ stuff. It is the lynch pin that keeps if pulled will bring down a great deal of incentive for the depriving of grandma of her liberty, property, civil and human rights. Do you think for a minute that without the ‘money in the mattress’ and the contents of the safety deposit box **** would have any interest in Mary Sykes!!

May passing the written test administered by the Illinois Secretary of State could put Dr. Shaw out of business and cause severe economic hardship to a bunch of GALs and other “judicial officials”. I refer to the Sykes case as the ‘son of Greylord” because it is another chapter in the infamous history of Cook County, Illinois.

-KEN DITKOWSKY

A very important point that this blog keeps reminding its readers is that NO SODINI NOTICES were given when the petition was filed.

Ken goes is more details:

However, the important aspect of the Sodini protections (172 ILL App3d 1053) is the actual notice to the close relatives and the providing the alleged disabled person with the knowledge of her rights. This is especially the case since the lack of Jurisdiction has been repeatedly pointed out to the court and the GAL’s and ignored. All should be disciplined. Jurisdiction is an US Constitutional and Illinois Constitutional and due process right that cannot be ignored. It is fundamental to a democratic society (JoAnne Denison)

The 3rd aspect of the Sodini is the most important – notification of the alleged disabled person and the close relatives. This is important as it prevents the ambush of the alleged disabled person and makes certain that at the very least the close relatives have the opportunity to present a defense. For instance, Dr. Patel refused to sign the CP 211 (certificate of incompetency). The close relatives could have confronted Toerpe, Stern and Farenga with the fact that Mary passed a written examination administered by the Secretary of State, etc. Instead there was an ambush and as Mr. Stern reported, he, Farenga and Toerpe just agreed that Mary was incompetent and they and the Court willy nilly deprived her of her liberty, property, civil rights and property rights. This is not what the statute contemplates. The Statute reads:

§ 11a-10. Procedures preliminary to hearing.

(a) Upon the filing of a petition pursuant to Section 11a-8, the court shall set a date and place for hearing to take place within 30 days. The court shall appoint a guardian ad litem to report to the court concerning the respondent’s best interests consistent with the provisions of this Section, except that the appointment of a guardian ad litem shall not be required when the court determines that such appointment is not necessary for the protection of the respondent or a reasonably informed decision on the petition. If the guardian ad litem is not a licensed attorney, he or she shall be qualified, by training or experience, to work with or advocate for the developmentally disabled, mentally ill, physically disabled, the elderly, or persons disabled because of mental deterioration, depending on the type of disability that is alleged in the petition. The court may allow the guardian ad litem reasonable compensation. The guardian ad litem may consult with a person who by training or experience is qualified to work with persons with a developmental disability, persons with mental illness, or physically disabled persons, or persons disabled because of mental deterioration, depending on the type of disability that is alleged. The guardian ad litem shall personally observe the respondent prior to the hearing and shall inform him orally and in writing of the contents of the petition and of his rights under Section 11a-11. The guardian ad litem shall also attempt to elicit the respondent’s position concerning the adjudication of disability, the proposed guardian, a proposed change in residential placement, changes in care that might result from the guardianship, and other areas of inquiry deemed appropriate by the court. Notwithstanding any provision in the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Confidentiality Act or any other law, a guardian ad litem shall have the right to inspect and copy any medical or mental health record of the respondent which the guardian ad litem deems necessary, provided that the information so disclosed shall not be utilized for any other purpose nor be redisclosed except in connection with the proceedings. At or before the hearing, the guardian ad litem shall file a written report detailing his or her observations of the respondent, the responses of the respondent to any of the inquires detailed in this Section, the opinion of the guardian ad litem or other professionals with whom the guardian ad litem consulted concerning the appropriateness of guardianship, and any other material issue discovered by the guardian ad litem. The guardian ad litem shall appear at the hearing and testify as to any issues presented in his or her report.

(b) The court (1) may appoint counsel for the respondent, if the court finds that the interests of the respondent will be best served by the appointment, and (2) shall appoint counsel upon respondent’s request or if the respondent takes a position adverse to that of the guardian ad litem. The respondent shall be permitted to obtain the appointment of counsel either at the hearing or by any written or oral request communicated to the court prior to the hearing. The summons shall inform the respondent of this right to obtain appointed counsel. The court may allow counsel for the respondent reasonable compensation.

(c) If the respondent is unable to pay the fee of the guardian ad litem or appointed counsel, or both, the court may enter an order for the petitioner to pay all such fees or such amounts as the respondent or the respondent’s estate may be unable to pay. However, in cases where the Office of State Guardian is the petitioner, consistent with Section 30 of the Guardianship and Advocacy Act,¹ where an elder abuse provider agency is the petitioner, pursuant to Section 9 of the Elder Abuse and Neglect Act,² or where the Department of Human Services Office of Inspector General is the petitioner, consistent with Section 45 of the Abuse of Adults with Disabilities Intervention Act, no guardian ad litem or legal fees shall be assessed against the Office of State Guardian, the elder abuse provider agency, or the Department of Human Services Office of Inspector General.

(d) The hearing may be held at such convenient place as the court directs, including at a facility in which the respondent resides.

(e) Unless he is the petitioner, the respondent shall be personally served with a copy of the petition and a summons not less than 14 days before the hearing. The summons shall be printed in large, bold type and shall include the following notice:

NOTICE OF RIGHTS OF RESPONDENT

You have been named as a respondent in a guardianship petition asking that you be declared a disabled person. If the court grants the petition, a guardian will be appointed for you. A copy of the guardianship petition is attached for your convenience.

The date and time of the hearing are:

The place where the hearing will occur is:

The Judge’s name and phone number is:

If a guardian is appointed for you, the guardian may be given the right to make all important personal decisions for you, such as where you may live, what medical treatment you may receive, what places you may visit, and who may visit you. A guardian may also be given the right to control and manage your money and other property, including your home, if you own one. You may lose the right to make these decisions for yourself.

You have the following legal rights:

(1) You have the right to be present at the court hearing.

(2) You have the right to be represented by a lawyer, either one that you retain, or one appointed by the Judge.

(3) You have the right to ask for a jury of six persons to hear your case.

(4) You have the right to present evidence to the court and to confront and cross-examine witnesses.

(5) You have the right to ask the Judge to appoint an independent expert to examine you and give an opinion about your need for a guardian.

(6) You have the right to ask that the court hearing be closed to the public.

(7) You have the right to tell the court whom you prefer to have for your guardian.

You do not have to attend the court hearing if you do not want to be there. If you do not attend, the Judge may appoint a guardian if the Judge finds that a guardian would be of benefit to you. The hearing will not be postponed or canceled if you do not attend.

Service of summons and the petition may be made by a private person 18 years of age or over who is not a party to the action.

(f) Notice of the time and place of the hearing shall be given by the petitioner by mail or in person to those persons, including the proposed guardian, whose names and addresses appear in the petition and who do not waive notice, not less than 14 days before the hearing. IL ST CH 755 § 5/11a-10

Sons of Greylord, born of the Illinois ARDC

Posted on July 25, 2012 by Joanne M Denison

We are all aware including the De-facto guardians ad litem that there was no petition that meets the Sodini requirements and certainly no notice. The net effect is:

Wednesday, July 25, 2012

Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission

130 East Randolph Street

Chicago, Illinois 60601 -6219

Attn: Leah Black, Esq. RE: JoAnne Denison in relation to Cynthia Farenga

Dear Ms. Black:

As you are allegedly investigating the spurious charges that Ms. Farenga generated against Ms. Denison, and that she and Ms. Stern generated against me, it stands to reason one of the first items of business on the agenda of any person connecting an ‘honest’ investigation would be to ascertain if Ms. Farenga and Mr. Stern’s appointments were viable. Holding oneself out to be guardian ad litem when the Court appointing you has no jurisdiction is not in the best traditions of the bar! Indeed, it is a material misrepresentation of fact in the nature of fraud.

What Ms. Denison is asking is whether or not the ARDC was interested enough in the facts of the Sykes case to ascertain if the ‘jurisdictional’ protections that are mandatory statutory criterion were complied. Our investigation of the docket and the record indicate that 1). The petition filed by Ms. Troepe was defective in that it did not disclose all the close relatives, 2) Mr. Schmiedel and Mr. Stern both admitted that there was no compliance with the Sodini requirements – an ‘ambush’ in which another subject is to be discussed does not meet the Sodini requirements, and as these requirements are intended to protect an alleged incompetent (disabled person) from exactly what has happened in the Sykes case, the requirements cannot be waived. Indeed, if Mary was indeed incompetent she did not have the capacity to waive the requirements. 3) there is no notice of incompetency proceedings and/or proceedings for the appointment of a plenary guardian filed in the court record and no return of service is reported on any of Mary Sykes’ close relatives.

Thus, unless the ARDC was able to in its search of the record to ascertain something we could not find that contradicts the admissions of both Stern and Schmiedel Ms. Farenga and Mr. Stern are not duly appointed anythings – they are at best volunteers! The proceedings in the Sykes case without are extra jurisdictional. If the ARDC did an investigation the ‘declarations’ that you refer to in your letter would be in your file. In the documents that you furnished me there were no such pleadings, petitions, motions and/or certificates of service. As you affidavit suggests that you did a complete search the net effect is that Ms. Farenga’s complaints against Ms. Denison are not only inappropriate but ‘fraudulent!’ How such action by Ms. Farenga is condoned and allowed to continue is *****.

Of course, if as we suspect that the Sykes incompetency proceeding is one of those proceedings reported by Solzhenitsyn the facts are secondary to the result! The record of intimidation and frugality with the truth by the ‘de facto’ guardians’ ad litem is now legend. Just about every ‘internet site’ that exposes ‘elder abuse/ financial exploitation of the elderly’ has posted examples of the perfidy that has taken place in the Sykes case. Mr. Stern and Ms. Farenga are feathered players in the vitiation of ‘grandma’s rights.’ Ms. Denison and I individually and as her attorney would appreciate copies of any statements that were taken by ARDC investigators that could give any credibility to any claim that the protections that were mandated to be provided Mary Sykes and other persons similarly situated were indeed provided. As of this moment 100% of the evidence points to the fact that the mandate of the Illinois Legislature and the Appellate Court of Illinois are being ignored and senior citizens – such as Mary Sykes – are systematically having their liberty, property, human rights and civil rights confiscated. It also appears that any attorney who complains of the abrogation of justice is the subject of either ARDC discipline or harassment. This creates another wonderful image for the legal profession and the administration of justice. In fact it is the ‘son of Greylord!’

Of course, it the Sodini protections were not afforded Mary Sykes there was no jurisdiction in the Circuit Court of Cook County and the ARDC (and its Administrator) under its own rules and under the Supreme Court rules is mandated to bring charges against the attorneys who have ‘railroaded’ Mary Sykes into a situation in which she has been deprived of her liberty, her property, her civil rights, and unfortunately even her human rights. I have previously called upon the ARDC to join in the call for a complete, honest and comprehensive investigation of the Sykes matter. The silence is deafening!

Yours very truly,

Kenneth Ditkowsky

Lea Black’s Petition to BAR Gloria from testifying at Ken’s proceeding against the ARDC

Posted on July 25, 2012 by Joanne M Denison

As ridiculous as this sounds, it is true. Lea Black (ARDC) has filed a petition to BAR Gloria from testifying on the basis that she was “uncooperative” in setting up a place and time for her deposition. Gloria has gone to the lengths of transforming a suite room into a conference room to appease Ms Black. Does that sound uncooperative?

Ken puts it eloquently as to what the ARDC is essentially doing by filing this motion:

“I know it is difficult to believe that the ARDC filed a petition to punish me for complaining about judicial corruption in Cook County and in particular:

1) objecting to Stern, Farenga, Schmiedel et al denying Mary Sykes (a senior citizen age 90plus) of her rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed under the United States Constitution

2) Circuit Court Judges and court appointed lawyers ignoring the jurisdictional limitations of the Courts and in particular those designed by the legislature to protect senior citizens. A judge has a duty to determine if he/she has jurisdiction. In the Sykes case it appears that (using the words of Adam Stern) ‘it is a technicality!’ I just hope that at some point in time Adam Stern, Cynthia Farenga et al have to personally address that technicality.

3) Objecting to the non-inventory of over a million dollars in assets belonging to Mary Sykes! LG asked Mr. Evans if he considered that theft! It makes no difference if Mr. Evans considers it theft or not! Theft is unauthorized control and except in these probate cases that is unauthorized control It is also a taxable event. I calculate that with the taxes due, interest and penalties at this point in time the conspirators owe in excess of a million dollars to the United States of America. (Mr. Dubow – the accountant informs me that the interest is 5per cent per month up to 25% of the tax due. The fraud penalty – for the breach of fiduciary relationship and the concealment – is 50%. The tax is 30%. Ms Toerpe should be sleeping very well at night knowing that at this point in time she and the conspirators to evade the legitimate income taxes owed to the United States of America can help Mr. Obama make a dent in the debt!”

Banning someone simply because setting up a deposition proves a bit difficult is UNHEARD of. It’s simply not a reason. But of course, desperate times call for desperate measures. Judicial corruption is about to be exposed and Lea Black is doing everything she can to hinder this.

Below are both the motion to bar Gloria Sykes and Ken’s response to that motion. It should not be long before we get news that Lea Black’s motion is DENIED if there is even an ounce of justice in the justice system.

Motion to Bar Gloria

Response to Motion to Bar Respondent’s Witnesses – 07-24-2012

ARDC Petition to BAN Gloria as a witness in Ken Ditkowsky’s case against ARDC

Posted on July 25, 2012 by Joanne M Denison

As hard as it to believe, LEA BLACK has filed a petition to BAN GLORIA from testifying at Ken’s hearing against the ARDC. And the ridiculous reason they gave was that Gloria has been “uncooperative” in regards to setting up a time and place for her deposition even though Gloria attempted to appease Lea Black by renting a suite and agreeing to convert one room into a conference room among many other accommodations. The basis of this

Ken puts in eloquently about what the ARDC has essentially done by filing this petition:

“I know it is difficult to believe that the ARDC filed a petition to punish me for complaining about judicial corruption in Cook County and in particular:

1) objecting to Stern, Farenga, Schmiedel et al denying Mary Sykes (a senior citizen age 90 plus) of her rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed under the United States Constitution

Below is the motion filed by the ARDC. Feel free to laugh at the ridiculousness of the basis of their motion. I have also attached Ken’s response to the motion. It should not be long from now that we receive news that the ARDC’s motion BE DENIED if the justice system even has a drop of justice in it.

What exactly IS the definition of theft? LB was asking Scott the other day.

Posted on July 25, 2012 by Joanne M Denison

I am told that during Scott’s deposition the other day, he was asked if he thought the non inventorying of $1 million in gold coins constituted theft (objection–witness is not a lawyer and cannot formulate legal opinions).

I can’t believe LB asked Scott if he considered the noninventorying of $1 million in gold coins to be theft or not! that’s a complete hoot.

first of all, you’re right about who cares if scott knows the legal definition of theft, but second of all, it begs a better question and that is, why would LB want to even consider bending the legal definition of theft.

okay, so if I see a million dollars in a safe deposit box with your name on it, can I just use it for a little and put it back, or,
maybe if I move it here for awhile or there for awhile, you won’t mind now will you,
or I’m just using it for a bit until Mary is no longer incompetent and then she’s gonna get competent and say what I did was fine because she likes me and I’m her beloved daughter Carolyn.

hmmm. i’m not impressed.

if it looks like a theft, sounds like a theft, smells like a theft and quack liks a theft, then it’s a duck?

joanne

Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 18:06:18 -0700
From: kenditkowsky@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Lea Black filed a motion to have me banned from testifying after she wrote

Larry – indeed, copy it and sent it JoAnne and anyone else who wants a copy.

I always hated to hear lawyers start a sentence with I have been practicing law for 2000 years and I have never seen anything like this; however, I’ve only been practicing law for five decades and I have to admit that I have have not seen a petition like the petition that LG filed to bar me from presenting Gloria Sykes as my witness in the ARDC proceeding that seeks to punish me for complaining of judicial corruption. If the law were applied uniformly the United States Attorney is in real trouble as he not only complains about corruption, but he even sends corrupt judges to jail.

If I were to approach you and tell you that the ARDC attorney after doing everything possible to create an acrimonious relationship with Gloria, and after Gloria attempted to appease her by renting a suite, converting one room into a conference room etc, the ARDC attorney filed a sanction motion (Rule 219) to bar me from using Gloria as a witness in defense of the frivolous and spurious complaint that the ARDC authored – would you believe me? Well it is true! JoAnne, Larry will send you the Motion so that you can verify that what I say is indeed not my being delusional!

I know it is difficult to believe that the ARDC filed a petition to punish me for complaining about judicial corruption in Cook County and in particular:

1) objecting to Stern, Farenga, Schmiedel et al denying Mary Sykes (a senior citizen age 90 plus) of her rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed under the United States Constitution

3) Objecting to the non-inventory of over a million dollars in assets belonging to Mary Sykes! LG asked Mr. Evans if he considered that theft! It makes no difference if Mr. Evans considers it theft or not! Theft is unauthorized control and except in these probate cases that is unauthorized control It is also a taxable event. I calculate that with the taxes due, interest and penalties at this point in time the conspirators owe in excess of a million dollars to the United States of America. (Mr. Dubow – the accountant informs me that the interest is 5 per cent per month up to 25% of the tax due. The fraud penalty – for the breach of fiduciary relationship and the concealment – is 50%. The tax is 30%. Ms Troepe should be sleeping very well at night knowing that at this point in time she and the conspirators to evade the legitimate income taxes owed to the United States of America can help Mr. Obama make a dent in the debt!

Oh well! four years ago we were promised ‘change!’ This change did not come from Washington, but come via Naperville! The new National Socialists are a bonus! As law enforcement is quiet concerning our demands for an honest, comprehensive, and complete investigation maybe we ought to start a fund at BOA to purchase brown shirts, and jack boots so that all our new found friends can be in uniform as they goose-step to the Daley Center.

JoAnne – it all fits into the grand scheme of things – The golf course that Betty Maltese purchased would make a wonderful camp. Mr. Schmiedel can rave over the progress that grandma is making as she learns to breathe MIC. The ARDC does not believe that the last sentence is protected speech – fortunately they are the only ones – and the United States Supreme Court has mandated. Indeed, if you want to verify that I am again speaking the truth – the ARDC complaint against me is on their web-site. While the document takes a great deal out of context, is misleading and replete with unfounded conclusions it nevertheless clearly demonstrates, the due process, the first amendment, and other liberties are a thing of the past!

If law enforcement and the politicans who really care about the United States do not wake up, smell the coffee and act to preserve our democratic society we will not have one – we will be sent to the Gulag!

Ken Ditkowsky

http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/
–

Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 18:06:18 -0700
From: kenditkowsky@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Lea Black filed a motion to have me banned from testifying after she wrote
To: JoAnne@DenisonLaw.com; lawoffice5940@yahoo.com; lawrence@Lhyman.com
CC: drditkowsky@aol.com

Larry – indeed, copy it and sent it JoAnne and anyone else who wants a copy.

If I were to approach you and tell you that the ARDC attorney after doing everything possible to create an acrimonious relationship with Gloria, and after Gloria attempted to appease her by renting a suite, converting one room into a conference room etc, the ARDC attorney filed a sanction motion (Rule 219) to bar me from using Gloria as a witness in defense of the frivolous and spurious complaint that the ARDC authored – would you believe me? Well it is true! JoAnne, larry will send you the Motion so that you can verify that what I say is indeed not my being delusional!

I know it is difficult to believe that the ARDC filed a petition to punish me for complaining about judicial corruption in Cook County and in particular:

1) objecting to Stern, Farenga, Schmiedel et al denying Mary Sykes (a senior citizen age 90plus) of her rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed under the United STates Constitution

3) Objecting to the non-inventory of over a million dollars in assets belonging to Mary Sykes! LG asked Mr. Evans if he considered that theft! It makes no difference if Mr. Evans considers it theft or not! Theft is unauthorized control and except in these probate cases that is unauthorized control It is also a taxable event. I calculate that with the taxes due, interest and penalties at this point in time the conspirators owe in excess of a million dollars to the United States of America. (Mr. Dubow – the accountant informs me that the interest is 5per cent per month up to 25% of the tax due. The fraud penalty – for the breach of fiduciary relationship and the concealment – is 50%. The tax is 30%. Ms Troepe should be sleeping very well at night knowing that at this point in time she and the conspirators to evade the legitimate income taxes owed to the United STates of America can help Mr. Obama make a dent in the debt!

Ken Ditkowsky

http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/

From: JoAnne M Denison <jdenison@surfree.com>
To: Larry Chambers <lawoffice5940@yahoo.com>
Cc: ken ditowsky <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 5:24 PM
Subject: Re: Lea Black filed a motion to have me banned from testifying after she wrote

Dear Larry;

Can you please scan and email a copy of the motion filed by LB to bar Gloria’s testimony.

i would like to publish that, it’s soooo amazingly incredible.

thanks

joanne
—–Original Message—–
From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Jul 24, 2012 2:44 PM
To: GLORIA Jean SYKES
Subject: Re: Lea Black filed a motion to have me banned from testifying after she wrote

You will in testify – I cannot envision the ARDC acting so overtly to protect Stern and Farenga et al that they would even attempt to have you barred from testifying.

I was wrong! A petition came in in today’s mail. Even though you have gone through hoops and gone the extra mile to accommodate, Ms. Black wants to bar your testimony. I am sorry – she wants to prevent me from calling you as a witness. As you are on her witness list, she still can call you.

The incentive to join Farenga, Stern, et al in the corruption is must be incredible. I estimated the gold coins at about a million dollars in value; however, I must have underestimated the value as the harassment continues unabated. We have to have an honest, comprehensive and complete investigation. It appears that we hit a nerve and the Constitution has been suspended! The Administrator of the ARDC’s petition to bar your testimony in a trial in which I am the respondent is not only outrageous but a declaration that if you oppose the denial of liberty, property, civil rights and human rights in the eyes of the Illinois Judiciary you also lose your rights, privileges and immunities. I find that concept totally unacceptable and I will not walk quietly into the gas chambers! It is my intention to continue to fight for ‘grandma’s rights’ and win, lose, or draw I have no intention of allowing my civil rights to be compromised.

For your information I prepared a draft of a response to the petition filed by the Administrator. It states what I wish to say:

Response to Motion to Bar Respondent’s witnesses based upon failure to Administrator to comply with Rule 201(k)

The Petitioner’s prayer for relief reads:

“The Administrator’s motion is Allowed/denied. Respondent is barred from presenting Gloria Sykes as witness at the hearing in this matter.”

The motion of the Administrator does not allege any wrong doing on the part of the respondent or that Gloria Sykes is not a person named on the Administrator’s witness list and/or an independent person and citizen entitled to her liberty, her property, her civil rights and her human rights. Indeed, the relationship between the respondent and the potential witness Gloria Sykes necessary for the Administrator motion to be viable was abrogated in 1865 with the adoption of the 13^th Amendment to the United States Constitution. The respondent is a bystander in the discovery dispute between Ms. Sykes[1] and the Administrator.

It is respectfully submitted that the Petition of the Administrator to Bar use by respondent of the Testimony of Gloria Sykes reveals that the only action of the respondent in the dispute between Ms. Sykes and the Administrator were the attempts by the respondent to assist the Attorney for the Administrator in reaching an accommodation between her acrimony toward Gloria Sykes. [Ms. Sykes is disclosed by the Administrator as one of his potential witnesses.] The Respondent was not involved in the discovery dispute that is the subject matter of the Motion. It is further respectfully suggested that in the United States of America there is no precedent for any duly constituted judicial body or panel barring an opponent’s witness because a discovery accommodation cannot be accomplished by the petitioner (plaintiff) with a witness. It is respectfully suggested that the inappropriateness of these proceedings, the Administrator’s bias and lack of concern for due process and the Rule of law is evident in the Motion and mandate that the panel re-examine it prior rulings in relation to dismissal of the proceeding.

Under American Law , the respondent has no duty to ‘blackjack’ or intimidate persons who have knowledge of the falsity of the Administrator’s disciplinary complaint to appear for discovery depositions conducted by the Administrator. To require such a duty would be in derogation of the civil and criminal laws of the State of Illinois and the United States of America. Every person, regardless of race, color, National origin, or status in the case of in re: Mary Sykes is entitled to all the privileges and immunities of the United States Constitution, the Illinois Constitution of 1970, and the human rights declared by the mesne Nations of the World. There is no exception that reads: “except Kenneth Ditkowsky” or “except the witnesses of Kenneth Ditkowsky” or “except Gloria Sykes.”

It is significant that the Administrator does not seek to enforce the subpoena served on Ms. Sykes, but instead seeks sanctions against the respondent[2] . The Administrator cites no authority for punishing the respondent for his own failure to conduct a meaningful 201(k) conference with Ms. Sykes or his failure to attempt to enforce his subpoena. Rule 219 addresses discovery sanctions and the cases interpreting those cases provide that in order to seek enforcement the petitioner must allege a meaningful attempt to resolve disputes pursuant to Rule 201(k). The draconian sanction against the respondent (who is involved only tangency in this discovery dispute between the petition and a witness who appears on the Administrator’s witness list is directly contrary to the mandate of the Appellate Court of Illinois to wit:

Because the purpose of these sanctions is to effect discovery, rather than to punish the dilatory party (Jones v. Healy (1981), 97 Ill.App.3d 255, 52 Ill.Dec. 695, 422 N.E.2d 904), a “just order” under Rule 219(c) is one which, to the degree possible, ensures both the accomplishment of discovery and a trial on the merits (White v. Henrotin Hospital Corp. (1979), 78 Ill.App.3d 1025, 34 Ill.Dec. 349, 398 N.E.2d 24). For these reasons, default judgment or dismissal of the action, being the most drastic sanctions, are ones which courts are reluctant to impose and should be imposed only as a last resort in cases where the actions of the party demonstrate a deliberate, contumacious and unwarranted disregard of *374 the trial court’s authority, all other enforcement powers at the court’s disposal have failed to advance the litigation, and which may be set aside where a trial on the merits could be had without hardship or prejudice. (Kubian, 178 Ill.App.3d at 196-97, 127 Ill.Dec. at 407, 533 N.E.2d at 25.) Martinez v. Pfizer Laboratories Div., 216 Ill. App. 3d 360, 373-74, 576 N.E.2d 311, 320 (1991)

Fairness, which apparently is a foreign word that is unknown in certain legal circles, usually requires that documents and circumstances be reported in context and that completely. It appears that some of Ms. Sykes’ communications have not been submitted as part of documentation. This morning one Ms. Sykes’ e-mails to Ms. Black appeared on the net. It is attached hereto and made part hereof as exhibit 1.

Wherefore the respondent moves that the Motion of the Petition be denied and that the deposition of Gloria Sykes go ahead as scheduled, to wit: July 27, 2012 at 10:30 AM at the Chicago Holiday Inn and Suites, Chicago, Illinois.

[1] Ms. Sykes is on the Administrator’s witness list, yet the Administrator seeks only to bar the respondent from using her as witness. This conduct is consistent with the Administrator’s ignoring 735 ILCS 110 et seq, The First Amendment, land the recent Alvarez case decided by the United States Supreme Court. Ms. Syke’s testimony is expected to disclose the unusual events that have occurred in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, the unusual conduct of several of the Administrator’s witnesses who apparently claim to be judicial officials, confirm the words and phrases of one of the Judges of the Circuit Court in December 2009 that is most troubling, and the significant facts recited in her affidavit that verifies the respondent’s answer and counterclaim. In addition Ms. Sykes is a signatory on a American Disabilitly Act complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois that is consistent with whatever statements the Administrator claims were stated by the respondent pursuant to his First Amendment and Article One rights. Picking a ‘discovery dispute’ with a person on his own witness list and seeking to bar ‘his own witness’ from being called by the respondent is not only a obvious attempt to ‘salt’ the evidence but a further demonstration of the improper conduct that respondent has attempted to have law enforcement honestly, and comprehensively investigate. The Administrator in filing this instant motion places the legal profession is total dispute and demonstrates why there is reputedly a Spanish proverb to the effect that mouse would rather be assigned to a ‘cat’s mouth’ rather than a “lawyer’s care!”

[2] Rule 219 specifically provides that nonparties are subject to discovery sanctions for noncompliance.¹ When faced with a refusal to comply with discovery by a nonparty, the primary sanction available to the trial judge is a finding of civil contempt and a corresponding fine. This sanction is designed to coerce compliance with court orders or subpoenas to testify at depositions.10 Ill. Prac., Civil Discovery § 19:21 (2011)

Ken Ditkowsky

http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/

From: GLORIA Jean SYKES <gloami@msn.com>
To: “kenditkowsky@yahoo.com” <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>
Cc: Tim Lahrman NASGA <timlahrman@aol.com>; maria 60 Minutes <lutzenm@cbsnews.com>; Dave Silver Iphone account <dmsilver@me.com>; ARDC springfield <12175222417@myfax.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 12:25 PM
Subject: RE: Lea Black filed a motion to have me banned from testifying after she wrote

Lea Black filed a petition to have me banned from testifying because I am an ‘uncooperative’ witness and ‘unneeded’ according to her paralegal. This came after I wrote her and asked her to call me on Friday to resolve this matter. I changed all my plans this week in order to testify and Scott holds no weight in this matter.

Ken you suggested I find a hotel and I did. Then Lea Black faxes me a letter she claims she mailed to me on the 16th: I never received such a letter! She then claims she can’t fax me, and refuses to e me. She then says that she cannot fax me because it’s filled up.

Then she offers me to take the depo at an attorney’s office that will allow Shaggy, and since I fear ambushes and with all that Peter Schmeidel,, Adam Stern, Cynthia Farenga, and Deborah Jo Soehlig have been able to accomplish, I asked Mr. Larkin to step in. He refused.

I am scared to death of our Judicial and the Officers of the Court and now the ARDC, who are suppose to protect the public from attorneys such as those I mentioned above. I know that Lea Black needs to have me disqualified or banned as my testimony stands between my mother’s life being saved and being slowly murdered by a Probate Division and the officers of the court for greed. Since I cannot afford an attorney in this matter I am pro se, and obviously, Lea Black can get away with ‘murder’ and ***.

I have jumped through hoops Ken to schedule a convent place as you suggested, and since Hotel’s no longer have ‘conference rooms’ but banquet halls, which I cannot afford. (There are business centers, but not good for meetings). That said, I was going to have the Suite set up as a conference room.

Yes, Lea Black and the ARDC have caused me much pain and suffering and yes they have intimidated me. On Monday they filed a motion to have my testimony banned and this comes after I asked Mr. Larkin to step in and/or Lea Black to call me (pursuant the letter, which I did not have a copy of when I wrote the first letter on Friday). I have filed a complaint with the U.S. Postal inspector for stolen mail, but I did not get this letter of the 16h or any letter from Lea Black. What is evident is that Ms. Black will go to any extent to prevent me from doing this deposition. She and the ARDC do not want the truth and that is a matter of fact. I don’t know what to do except to write a letter to the Commissioners and file another affidavit, as now it’s understood the questions they asked Scott Evans, who, unfortunately cannot testify to my mother asking for an attorney, the gold and silver coins, or even the Sodini requirements/notices. The ARDC would have to have my Aunt Yo or Aunty Jo or even me testify to that. Had I not been so terrorized by the Probate Division and Peter Schmieel, Deborah Soehlig, Adam Stern and Cynthia Farenga, who area sanctioned by the court to LIE and live above the law, I would have quickly agreed to allowing Ms. Black to arrange for one of her attorney friends offices. As it is, and after yesterday where Toerpe defied the courts instruction and stole all my property, *****.

This is America Ken is it not? I’m not scared to death to come near Chicago and the Crooks of the Court as officers of the court are protected by the ARDC and the Illinois Supreme Court to do great harm to innocents. This is witness tampering.

(Apparently and according to Black’s paralegal, they’re satisfied with Scott Evan’s testimony as the only witness in your case Case. Unfortunately, Scott’s testimony is simply hearsay, and he cannot testify to mother asking me to find you Ken, mother repeatedly asking for an attorney, any of the digital recordings (including audio recordings of August 2009), or the Sodini requirements. Let this email stand to my testimony that (1) I never received notice of a guardianship proceeding and was in court on the 26 August 2009 I, and mother’s sisters, Josephine DePietro, and Yolanda Bakken, (along with family Kathie Bakken and dear friends Scott Evans, Doris Evans, and Suzanne) were in court on the petition for the order of protections authored by and verified by my mother, Mary G. Sykes on June 9, 2009. That on December 10, 2009, without notice, Carolyn Toerpe, the named respondent to a petition for a protective order was appointed guardian of Mary G. Sykes (and this was done even though Mary G. Sykes objected profusely to such a guardianship) by an agreement between Toerpe, and attorneys Adam Stern and Cynthia Farenga. That even the docket is evidence that there were no notices, which are jurisdictional, and that the order clearly testifies to the ‘agreement’ between Toerpe, Stern and Farenga. That there is NO ORDER setting a guardianship hearing because there were no 14 day notices. The Petition or the order of protection is still pending and Illinois Statue clearly states that if a ‘respondent’ to a “petition for an order of protection’ is a guardian a ‘temporary substitute guardian SHALL be appointed”. Given that the court lacks jurisdiction, and that Toerpe is a respondent to not only (now) two petitions for an order of protection, but also a contempt order for not complying with a court order, it is unfair and unreasonable to believe that the ARDC would go to such extremes as to prevent the one testimony that would save my mother’s life, but instead, protect the lawless and evilness of attorneys Adam Stern, Cynthia Farenga and Peter Shcmiedel. I don’t know how high this ‘corruption’ goes, but it must be very deep and powerful.

That said, I will not be intimidated and will do what I need to do to testify, Ken. I have that right and you have a right to call me as one of your witnesses. I have cooperated, but Lea Black and the ARDC have done everything to stop and prevent the deposition as they do not want the truth on record. With what happened yesterday, indeed I am scared to death, Ken, that Peter Schmiedel, Adam Stern and Cynthia Farenga will go to any extreme to cause me pain and suffering for their financial benefits. Lea Black is conveniently not in today and Mr. Larkin has repeatedly redirected

Please advise.

Gloria Jean Sykes
Bon Ami Productions, Inc.

Lumbermen’s vs Gloria Sykes: exparte orders (not on file) and Peter Schmiedel’s threats and lawlessness

Posted on July 18, 2012 by Joanne M Denison

From Gloria:

I can’t help but feel that God is watching us from above every time we sit on the toilet. I also beleive that God watches sporting events, occasionally guiding tennis balls to the edges of lines and baseballs out of the arenas: God watches used car sale’s people sell damaged goods and our Political Leaders *****. He sees, with much angst, people like attorneys Peter Schmiedel, Adam Stern, and Cynthia Farenga, who believe they’re entitled, to LIE, cheat and steal from the elderly and disabled, or anybody they damn well want to steal from! God knows when people are dishonest and corrupt, and like Santa, He knows which people are good and when they’re bad. In fact, I think that all people live ‘under’ God, like a deity peering down on us like the store manager of Whole Foods atop the customer service desk. I also beleive that most people are ethical to a certain extent: some people make more ethical decisions than others, I think, because most people make decisions based on what he or she feels is right. That said, if in fact the society i which we presently live has redefined ethics i such a way as to separate it from morality, there’s no doubt in my mind that it therefore makes the importance of morality ad moral behavior in our lives and in society must less important than when ethics and morality were linked. We have substituted one of the other — or both — for power and money — and therefore, many people are unhappy people. In my lifetime, I’ve met many unhappy people, but none so obviously unhappy than Peter Schmiedel, Adam Stern, Cynthia Farenga and their client Carolyn Toerpe. The last time in court I paid particular attention to their faces, their body language, and wasn’t surprised to detect a full range of deceit oozing from each one: Peter Schmiedel backed off from Dr. Shaw, his arms hardened and crossed tight across his chest, biting his lower lip, noting not even Peter Schmiedel believed what he was saying! Cynthia Faregna, her face twisted, snarled, always with lifted brow and tightened jaw. Adam Stern, he like Carolyn Toerpe, sit without expression, pretending to be in control, but their micro expressions are still obvious. Toerpe’s shoulder twitches forward, her lips turned downward, her glassy stare at nothing: Adam Stern, also stares at nothing, his mouth buttoned tight, Call these people what you like, but they’re unhappy people who create illusions of grander to feel accepted and when on the verge of exposure, like wild animals in a cage, they attack with no though or concern for what is wright or wrong, just because they can.

On the 29th day of September, and 2nd day of October 2008, four attorneys, Finn and McInerney on behalf of Lumbermens’ the Plaintiff, and Salam and Moskowitz, on behalf of me, the defendant, had pre trial chats wtih Judge Mulhern in the Lumbermen’s case. I paid close to $1000 for the transcripts. On pafe 53 Salam discuses ‘secondary property damages’ …””*** to the jury would be teh cost to fix the house, the loss of the use of the house, the cost ot fix and replace the personal property, the loss and use of the personal property, and your typical damages related to that… expenses she incurred related to, you know ****” She is Gloria Jean Sykes, me, and the home damaged needed to be fixed up in 6016, where I lived, I had the only insurance policy and I was the true owner (who was talked into putting mom on for joint tenancy for survivorship by an attorney claiming that should something happen to me, Carolyn Toerpe can’t bring it into the Probate Court and stake a claim.) My mother “Mary” is only discussed twice during the many hours of pre trial discussions. Page 71/line 15 – 24/ PAGE 72 LINES

MR. SALAM: We agree to the extent we’re not claiming physical injury apart from emotional distress under the intentional inflicton of emotional distress claim, so…

THE COURT: Does that satisfy you, Mr. Finn?

MR. FINN: Right. But then Mary Sykes is not — she doesn’t have an intentional —

MR. SALAM: No. she does not.

THE COURT: NO. She’s on there only because she’s a title holder.

MR. SALAM: Yes exactly.

THE COURT: All right. So this is granted.

Mary G. Sykes is considered only a ‘title holder’ who filed no claims and had no insurance on the property — or lived in the property. Yes, Judge Mulhern also understood that Mary Sykes was just a title holder and a title holder is not necessarily the actually owner, and this is how the system works, except in the Sykes case, where PS, AS, CF create illusions in order to mask the truth that they would cheat Mother Terressa out of every penny she raised to help the unfortunate if in fact, the attorneys were looking to get paid! But now I’m a head of myself. In the about 250 pages of transcripts in three columns, my mother Mary is only mentioned once! Once! I seem to recall that there is a transcript where Finn asks the court if Mary Sykes has filed any damages, and Judge Mulhern says, “No.***” but those transcripts are now in the possession of Carolyn Toerpe.

I’ve asked CF, AS, and PS for a copy of the claim my mother filed or proof she had insurance on the property … but they can’t seem to find any documentation, just like they can’t find proof that Aunts Yo or Jo or I were served and Sodini requirements met. What is also interesting, that I have the original Lumbermen’s lawsuit in front of me and no where in that suit is Mary Sykes mentioned: in my counter-complaint, I am the only Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff, and in the Motion for Summary Judgement, again, at all times the heading to the breif reads, GLORIA SYKES, Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff.

But sine Adam STern, Cynthia Farenga and Peter Schmiedel barred me from bringing in any witnesses or presenting any evidence, and they also waived my attorney / client confidentiality with attorney Kevin Salam (yep, first question by Peter Schmiedel was answered by Salam who reported to the court that “Gloria Sykes didn’t want her mother to get any of the settlement funds”. Of course, in cross, Salam backed off and corrected his statement that he could not answer the question because of attorney client privileged/confidentiality. What is interesting, attorney Peter Schmiede summoned attorney Kevin Salam for the sole purpose to have him give testimony that would give the appearance t hat I financially exploited my mother and swindled her out of the settlement money. That means, that attorneys Kevin Salam and Moskowitz, Finn and McInerney, and Judge Mulhern were in on the financial exploitation. Kevin Salam was appropriated $250,000: Gene Moskowitz was appropriated $250,000. Legal Funds were appropriated about $100,000. Expert witnesses were paid from the settlement funds as was Purofirst. But AS, CF, PS and CT, however, are only going after me! Hell, Judge Mary Mulhern was in on the scam, too!

So to answer the question how much longer can the fiasco continue, as long as law enforcement, the States Attorneys Office and the Court allows attorneys Peter Schmiedel, Cynthia Farenga, and Adam STern to LIE to the court, and Carolyn Toerpe to hold my mother hostage, isolate her, drug her and not comply with court orders to turn over my mtoher’s bank statements from 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, this will go on forever.

And my mother suffers because she’s been denied access to the courts and silenced.

Yep God is watching all of us and there will be a judgment day. I pray my mother survives this guardianship holocaust so she and I can travel the States and speak to any person who will listen that what has happened in the Sykes case can happen to any person .. as long as there are unethical, mean-spirited, lying attorneys like Adam Stern, Peter Schmiedel, and Cynthia Farenga living free lives and an ARDC that doesn’t care about the truth or the lives of innocents like my mother Mary G. Sykes.

I know that attorneys Gene Moskowitz and Kevin Salam know the truth, too.

Comments from Ken:

The spanish proverb comes to mind – a mouse would rather be in the mouth of the cat than in the hands of a lawyer –

What has happened in the Sykes case is tragic, but consistent with the greylord scandal and Illinois’ new tradition of governors going from the State house to the big house. Only a hypocrite can defend the fact that Mary Sykes is being held in isolation by Stern, Farenga, Troepe and Schmiedel illegally. It is illegal because these National socialists did not give the jurisdictional notices that were required. The August 31 transcript words and phrases of the judge are an indictment of the judge and indicative of a very sorry state of affairs. The Sodini case points out that the Circuit Court has (had) no jurisdiction! Thus, the covering court orders are void and *****.

Whether the ‘good lord’ judges the miscreants in this drama or not it is apparent that if America is to survive it has to honor its basic principles – liberty, freedom, and fraternity. The specter of the First Amendment being trashed is a pure horror only topped by the fact that Mary Sykes and others like her are now routinely deprived of their liberty, property, human and civil rights while law enforcement and particularly the legal profession fiddles and defends the miscreants.

Peter Schmiedel, Cynthia Farenga, Adam Stern deserve to be ‘unhappy!’ When Law enforcement finally gets around to doing an honest, complete and comprehensive investigation they will have to face ‘man’s justice!’ All who aid and abet them will also attone for their part in the gulag. The good lord has a much more unhappy solution which in my fifty years of practice I watched. It is summed up in the phrase “what comes around, goes around!” Some of your friends will witness one or more of the miscreants enjoy the loving care that is bestowed by Peter Schmiedel Jr. on Peter Schmiedel Sr as he separates Sr from his friends, his family, and systematically deprives him or his liberty, property, and human rights. (Schmiedel, Farenga and Stern have taught their children well and rest assurred each will enjoy ****

Right now we need that investigation!

Joanne’s fax to [agency], [entity] and [agency2]

Posted on July 17, 2012 by Joanne M Denison

As mentioned in previous posts, in [entity] [forum] it is FORBIDDEN to have laptops to take notes (what ever happened to freedom of press and speech?). Hence, every time we go in to look at the Sykes files (an entire cart load of papers), we have to resort to pen and paper (hours and hours a day spent on taking notes and then putting them in order). Joanne was told by the [entity] in [forum] room to speak to [forum] about any complaints, so she did. Below is a fax sent today to Mr. [entity] at [forum] about the [troubles and issues] in this case and a table of torts summarizing all the [troubles and issues] that have happened in the Sykes case

Fax to [entity], [entity] and [agency]

Comments from Ken Ditkowsky on MISSING documents and pleadings in 09 P 4585

Posted on July 17, 2012 by Joanne M Denison

It looks like we have entered the Spoliation of the evidence phase. The two Guardian ad litem and the plenary guardian are aware that for the 2nd time they have neglected the technicality of jurisdiction and are hanging out there ‘naked!’ (The first was the direct intimidation threat via the sanction motion, and this one is more serious as it arises from the failure to provide Mary Sykes with the protections that she is required to be provided by statute – the failure to provide these protections strips the Court of Jurisdiction (Sodini))

It should be noted that as so many years have gone by without the Court having jurisdiction and with Gloria complaining of the lack of jurisdiction any defense at this point in time would either be a sham or an oxymoron.

Let me make this very clear as I have copied law enforcement and the many of the people who have joined in the fight to stamp out elder abuse and financial exploitation of the elderly by the political elite and their ‘court appointed friends.’ (see GAO September Report to Congress) In the Sykes case law enforcement has absolutely no further excuse for not acting. JoAnne Denison’s work has reduced this case down to simple embezzlement, breach of fiduciary relationship, theft, false imprisonment. In the flotsam of the forcible entry and detainer action wrongfully filed and wrongfully prosecuted there was trespass, battery, and theft committed. (Gloria went to the States Attorney and they refused to prosecute).

How does all of this happen in the United States of America and law enforcement and government totally ignore all of this miscreant behavior. The ARDC has a history of note ‘covering themselves with glory’ in Greylord and in some of the other scandals = but by in large law enforcement has been the saving grace. Why not now! At the very least you would think with the budget crisis that both the State and the Federal Governments suffer the Department of the Treasury would be interested in collecting taxes. (I guess that collecting taxes from the political elite is not a priority – a rough calculation of the taxes, interest, and penalties due in Sykes is a million dollars and in Tyler – seven to eight million! Breach of Fiduciary relationship is a taxable event)

Where is that honest complete and comprehensive investigation of Sykes case, the Tyler cse, the Gore case, the Wyman case and the dozens of other similar cases? Why is the GAO report being ignored.

Ken Ditkowsky

http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/

A complete list of all files in Mary G Sykes case. Please note all the missing documents

Posted on July 16, 2012 by Joanne M Denison

Below is a table of the files on the Mary G Sykes case that were found in Judge Stuart’s courtroom. Most of the 2009 files were copies obtained from Ken’s office, not where the main file is. Why is that? Some of the Court orders are also missing, additionally, most of the files filed by Joanne are also removed from the file.

sykes docket sheet

Missing Appellate Volume: ALL 13 OF THEM

Posted on July 16, 2012 by Joanne M Denison

After speaking with Judge Stuart’s clerk today, it was clear that the appellate volume was not in Judge Stuart’s courtroom. She then suggested that I go down to the 6th floor to talk to the file manager Ben, who is the middle man between files coming from the Appellate division to the Circuit Court.

After checking both his computer and the physical files, he came back with empty hands and an apology. No appellate volumes to be found at all for this case.

How do nine volumes of anything just go missing?

The Appellate volumes have many of the transcripts and court orders that seem to be currently missing from the file.

Any thoughts on what happened to the Appellate volumes? Be creative in the comment section below!

Motion in Limine

Posted on July 16, 2012 by Joanne M Denison

BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD OF THE

ILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATION

AND

DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION

In the Matter of: )

)

KENNETH KARL DITKOWSKY, )

) Commission No. 2012 PR 00014

Attorney-Respondent, )

)

No. 642754 )

MOTION IN LIMINE

Now comes Kenneth Ditkowsky moves for a Rule in Limine prohibiting further violation of his Rights protected under the Illinois Constitution of 1970 and the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution:

1) That the respondent is a citizen of the United States of America and the State of Illinois and therefore entitled to the protections of Article 1 of the Illinois Constitution of 1970.

2) That the respondent is a citizen of the United States of America and the State of Illinois and therefore entitled to the protections of the First, Fifth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution,

3) That the policy of the State of Illinois is stated in 735 ILCS 110/5. 735 ILCS 110/5 in words and phrases states:

§ 5. Public policy. Pursuant to the fundamental philosophy of the American constitutional form of government, it is declared to be the public policy of the State of Illinois that the constitutional rights of citizens and organizations to be involved and participate freely in the process of government must be encouraged and safeguarded with great diligence. The information, reports, opinions, claims, arguments, and other expressions provided by citizens are vital to effective law enforcement, the operation of government, the making of public policy and decisions, and the continuation of representative democracy. The laws, courts, and other agencies of this State must provide the utmost protection for the free exercise of these rights of petition, speech, association, and government participation.

Civil actions for money damages have been filed against citizens and organizations of this State as a result of their valid exercise of their constitutional rights to petition, speak freely, associate freely, and otherwise participate in and communicate with government. There has been a disturbing increase in lawsuits termed “Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation” in government or “SLAPPs” as they are popularly called.

The threat of SLAPPs significantly chills and diminishes citizen participation in government, voluntary public service, and the exercise of these important constitutional rights. This abuse of the judicial process can and has been used as a means of intimidating, harassing, or punishing citizens and organizations for involving themselves in public affairs.

It is in the public interest and it is the purpose of this Act to strike a balance between the rights of persons to file lawsuits for injury and the constitutional rights of persons to petition, speak freely, associate freely, and otherwise participate in government; to protect and encourage public participation in government to the maximum extent permitted by law; to establish an efficient process for identification and adjudication of SLAPPs; and to provide for attorney’s fees and costs to prevailing movants. IL ST CH 735 § 110/5

4) That the First Amendment to the United States Constitution states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. USCA CONST Amend. I-Full Text

5) That it axiomatic that a respondent is entitled to all the privileges and immunities of both the Constitution of the State and the United States of America[1] . The United States Supreme Court has stated in numerous cases ( previously cited – the citations are incorporated by reference and made part hereof as if set forth in detail) that limitations of Free Speech are intolerable and that Free Speech cannot be limited except in very special circumstances[2] . A lawyer objecting to corruption, fraud, legal proceedings commenced and prosecuted without jurisdiction and/or depriving a senior citizen of her liberty, property, civil rights and human rights are not among the categories of speech that the State or the Administration can bar.

Wherefore the respondent moves that the Respondent be barred from presenting at any hearing or proceeding any testimony that the respondent (or any other citizen) made any statement as evidence of wrongdoing that is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In particular, the Administrator be barred from presenting as derogatory evidence the following:

1) Respondent was engaged by any other citizen to do any legal act. (Association)

2) Respondent communicated in any way with another person or entity (free speech)

3) Respondent communicated with any other attorney, judge, guardian, public official. (Right to petition government – free speech)

4) Respondent made charges that a government official (including a judicial official) committed some wrongful act or refused to do some act. (right of petition)

5) Respondent communicated with other persons that Cynthia Farenga, Adam Stern, Judge Connors, or some other persons did some act (including acts that might be deemed criminal) (free speech and assembly)

6) Respondent disseminated words and phrases that placed and caused others to believe that Cynthia Farenga, Adam Stern, Peter Schmiedel, other lawyers, or other persons had been miscreant or otherwise committed acts that were improper.[3] (free speech, assembly and petition to government)

7) Respondent used words and phrases that might tend to cause anxiety or concern in 3^rd persons that they might be or might have committed acts that were in derogation or neglect of their professional responsibilities. (free speech)

8) Respondent may have authored, disseminated or otherwise published any other and different statement containing words and phrases which was offensive to Adam Stern, Peter Schmiedel, Lea Black, Cynthia Farenga, one or more Judges, the Administrator and other members of the political elite or judiciary. (free speech and/or right of assembly)

9) Respondent may have authored, disseminated or otherwise published words and phrases that were critical of judicial decision, legislation, law enforcement activities, or the policies of the ARDC and/or any other government agency or entity.

10) Otherwise affecting Respondent’s right to communicate with regards to any other word, phrase, display, or other form of communication protected by the United States Constitution, Article One of the Illinois Constitution, or law of the United States of America.

Respectfully Submitted

Kenneth K. Ditkowsky

More disturbing reports from other blogs regarding the 18th floor of the Daley Center

Posted on July 15, 2012 by Joanne M Denison

Dear readers;

This is from another probate blog but the descriptions are eerily similar to what is going on with Mary Sykes.

thanks

JoAnne

Any diagnosis makes someone at risk of enslavement in Cook County by Cook County Guardian under Illinois Probate Law in this case study. County takes away your right to decide for self
These are some human rights problems visitors/athletes face coming to a Chicago Olympics or to Chicago
1. Asking where parent or family is can result in restraining order and jail threat by Cook County judge and sheriff staff
2. Asking to visit, take family home can result in contempt charges by Cook County judge. The judge charges money to deny visits, deny phone, taking family from nursing homes. Letters from parent that she wants to go home, be visited, get phone calls are responded to with motions to strike, being pushed from the Daley Center, contempt orders and arguments that filings are repetitive
3. Wanting parent to avoid second hand smoke results in jail threats, arm twisting, being pushed from Daley Center by some Cook County sheriff staff. Wanting parent to avoid brief second hand smoke associated with cancer can result in harassment and false following to car allegations
4. Asking what chemicals are put into parent results in harassment allegations by Cook County guardian staff Nathan Goldensen and Sadeta Kalamperovic
5. Cook County guardian staff charges over $500 for routine services to be guardians over those who have injury or illness. Their staff charge for many concerns such as “can my parent come home” or “can my parent go to the zoo” or “can my parent go outside for Christmas services” or “where is my parent.” Cook County guardian charges $18 for phone calls to them sometimes
6. Cook County guardian takes most assets essentially for their own use. Cook County guardian staff wants someone to stay in a nursing home and they use the assets for the nursing home and to dispute the right to leave the facility, go home, avoid smokers, be visited, get phone calls
7. Cook County Guardian charges money to not reimburse food, dental, optical, transportation, medical, prescription bills paid by credit card by family for the parent’s care. Requests for reimbursement are responded to with jail threats sometimes
8. Cook County Guardian staff responds to concerns that they tax Boeing involved in the war in Iraq, other wars like WWII, Vietnam and Afghanistan with jail threats and confinement of parent. Boeing’s missiles dropped in many nations at Olympics and around world
9. Cook County guardian take family mail and federal court rules guardian has the right or state courts have rights and persons under guardianship do not have federal right to complain
10. Appeals about the rights to visit family, phone family and have family come home cost $200 in the Illinois Court of Appeals and $435 in the federal court. The contempt charge about trying to visit parent and have parent go home was $100. Athletes might face jail threats for trying to visit or phone or take family from certain nursing homes here.
11. Injured and some family are treated by Cook County Guardian as without rights. Cook County guardian staff Nathan Goldensen/Belko has rights to decide but none of family have
12. Nursing home director says “you will be dead if you say things like that” about contacting the US attorney about an elderly person being treated like a slave. In response to concern with “you are going to be dead” comment, access restricted for 6 months
13. Attempts to get parent fresh air away from second hand smoke is responded to with arm twisting, jail threat, 6 month access restriction and being pushed from Daley Center.
14. Nathan Goldensen asks “are you an anti-Semite,” because I express concern with the County treating persons with injury like disabled were treated in the 1930’s under National Socialism in Germany
15. County demands $30,000-40,000 to dispute reimbursement of bills, confine family, not let family get fresh air, come with police and take away parent’s place to stay, come with police and handcuff parent for running away trying to avoid second hand smokers
16. Cook County judge tries to make concern with these issues “harm to parent,” even though parent clearly says wants to live with son, phone son, visit son, go to zoo, avoid smokers, go to own doctors, likes living and being with son
17. Parent’s hands and head are shaking, and Guardian responds to concern by restricting access to see parent
18. Cook County guardian Nathan Goldensen say did not receive letters from parent even though she called him and I gave letters to him. Nathan Goldensen acts like not aware of smokers, even though I say many smokers repeatedly and show pictures she is not able to get fresh air away from smokers
19. Judge, Cynthia Farenga and Nathan Goldensen respond to concerns with second hand smoke by restricting access and having sheriff take family from building. Lawyers charge to deny rights requests
20. Any incapacity, mental illness, disability can result in this treatment by the County.
21. Cook County judge restricts filing of documents about these issues
22. Cook County judge uses diagnoses or injury to take away rights to decide for self
23. Cook County guardian staff withholds records of chemicals put into person’s body and takes away place to stay for issues like cold water in apartment, pipes that break in cold, broken elevator, cold temperatures, area involved in war, reimbursement requests
24. Cook County guardian staff and hosptals give shots without consent for trying to get expenses reimbursed, know what is put in body, be concerned over state taxing corporation involved in war
25. War crime concerns that state taxes corporation involved in war result in jail threats, visitation, phone restrictions and going home restrictions
26. Nursing home director says “mother probably not here” even though the person is there. Location withheld for 3 or more months

27. Nathan Goldensen and Sadeta Kalamperovic hold parent in facility for 17 months or longer and go through much of family assets. $4,300 is being charged each month at nursing home
29. Chicago Police and Sadeta Kalamperovic come and handcuff parent who was trying to avoid second hand smokers at nursing homeand ran away from County staff
Probate laws can make athletes and visitors’ injuries and limitations into reasons rights lost.
Diagnoses are reasons to enslave in Illinois. Mental Illness is a reason to enslave in Illinois. Why are the 13th, 14th , 15th amendment not seen as applying to guardianship even though the actions are not that different? When persons have to appeal to the US Supreme Court to visit family, phone family, get family away from smokers, get family fresh air, have family come home, similarities with slavery are seen. Many concerns in Cook County court are responded to with jail threats and being pushed from the Daley Center.
After you go to the doctor in the United States or at least Illinois, the determination of a diagnosis is legally used to strip you of a number of rights and liberties. Guardians take you as property to charge you money to express all your rights. The simple fact that you are scared of “evil people” or want to say a word like “I am from Heaven” or princess might be used to make you into a slave or County property.

My comments are who is the “judge” but then again, it can be any of the judges in Probate. Go find a list of Daley center probate judges and just insert any name. Pick a name. Any name.

There is no doubt that an oversight committee needs to be formed for what is going on in Probate. If you go to a nursing home, dozens and dozens of seniors are begging to get out of there and go home, yet no one is investigating that. I know if they get too vociferous, then they get drugged. They know they will get drugged for that and many start to shut up.

The reality is if you are a senior and you lose your driver’s license, and even then, you can be forced to live where you don’t and your home will be sold to put you in a nursing home and pay guardianship fees.

KDD is not kidding when he calls these clout heavy nursing home systems an evil cabal of corruption and the new Gulag in the US.

Whereas other countries consider it a shame to put grandma or grandpa into a nursing home, we have made it the sucking sound of a large vacuum cleaner here–wallets, homes, savings, jewelry. You name it and it will be sold to put grandma in a nursing home with a guardian that isolates here and continuously violates the ADA and her human rights.

We already have the right laws, but the implementation of these laws by the GAL’s and the court system is turning into a human tragedy and complete loss of civil rights.

JoAnne

Oversignt committe:

1) make sure that wards are not exposed to second hand smoke

2) make sure that a home is not being sold just to dump someone in a nursing home to make the nursing home money. Those are dangerous places that precipitously decreases the lifespan of seniors by half or more (3 years avg vs. 7 or more years at home when nursing care required). Guardians and GAL’s must sign a certificate of compliance that home care is not possible and/or the ward has consented to nursing home placement. Nursing home placements should be review each 6 month with a survey from the Guardian that the placement is acceptable to the ward, that there is no other home placement among relatives, and she has sought to find a nurse for in home care and that is not possible at the present time.

3) required the judges to make appealable written findings of fact and conclusions of law when a Power of Attorney for health care selecting a guardian is ignored by the court.

4) require the judges to inquire into Sodini, asking the petitioner if all the relatives are properly listed together with their names and addresses AND to file a certificate of compliance that Petitioner has served notice on all close relatives (spouse, adult children, siblings, parents) informing each of the hearing date, place and time 14 days in advance of the hearing on a Petition for Guardianship.

5) allow concerned family and friends to appoint an independent attorney who may question the court, the guardian and the GAL’s on each and all of the above. If allegations are proven, and the ward is able to pay from the estate, the court may order reimbursement of up to half the attorney’s normal published rate.

Keeping Gloria on that good roll of court wins!

Posted on July 14, 2012 by Joanne M Denison

Dear Readers:

I have heard that Gloria did well in court on Friday, and that Carolyn was found in contempt of court because she refused, and continued to refuse to return Gloria’s property from the wrongful eviction from the White House. We will try to get a copy of the order and transcript for you all.

I was in the Probate court the other day, and I have since determined that 13 volumes of appellate transcripts are missing from the file. That’s about a box and a half of documents–and this is while the judge supposedly had those volumes securely locked away so papers from the file would not disappear.

However, the papers that have disappeared from the file, are only the ones that the miscreants want to have disappear–mainly my stuff, Gloria’s stuff and Ken’s stuff.

Since the judge has the file locked away, it appears to be an inside job and that exactly comports with Gloria’s story that the miscreants repeatedly go past the receptionist and are in the judge’s area. Since Greylord, there has been a court order in place to stop that, but does that stop the miscreants CF and AS? Not so, according to Gloria. Scott said he would check his notes but he is not sure he recorded when and how CF and AS have popped out of the judge’s private area. He wasn’t sure he recorded that at all, but he will let us know.

Also, coming up for August 16, 2012 is the next court date where Gloria will continue to cross Dr. Shaw on his testimony.

What I want to know is about those mini-mentals, what they comprise and how they’re supposed to be accurate regarding dementia and memory loss. How can you do that on a short questionnaire in your MD’s offices and they then use that to declare you incompetent.

FYI, those reports should not have been admitted, because they comprised hearsay on hearsay and Gloria could have easily knocked them out.. But maybe PS will forget he asked to have them admitted, and Gloria can make the argument again–they are too speculative to be of any use, no CBC was taken before which would detect hypoglycemia and other conditions which are temporary and indicate dementia, etc.

For next court date:

1) Gloria’s argument in written form that all of the evidence is too speculative and too old to be of any use in declaring a 2008 contract to be voided by the court.

2) Argument that this was not a private contract between two parties, as PS misrepresents to the court, but it is part of a valid entry of a court order. We now have the records that show PS did not file a Motion to Set Aside the apportionment agreement until May of 2011–a date far too late to come under section 1401 for attacking judgments. Kevin Salaam did an affidavit to that effect, it was a court order, and Gloria should get the file to the court and ask the judge to take judicial notice of the fact the agreement is indeed part of a court order.

3) Again, Gloria needs to get the declarations from Jo and Yo and get those on file with the court and set a time for their testimony they were not served with a time and date for the original Petition to declare Mary incompetent, and the court is acting without jurisdiction. There is also nothing in the file showing Mary received notice. A notice should have been put in the file and a certificate of service should have accompanied it setting forth it was 1) issued by the Petititon, Carolyn Toerpe; 2) it was mailed to all close relatives 14 days in advance of the hearing, namely Mary, Gloria, Jo and Yo. This was never done and I believe KDD knows the transcript date where PS or HW admitted it was never done. This court has no jurisdiction and is acting ultra vires. CT, by being well informed and continuing to participate in this charade has no business being guardian of anyone again–EVER. Gloria should be guardian, if a guardian is to be appointed, and that is only to protect Mary from Carolyn. Also, see the Table of Torts which I will be publishing on one of the pages of the website.

4) Gloria also has to put together a comprehensive response to PS’s Motion for Partition. The one that is on file now 1) does not mention the legal standards to bring a partition action; 2) she does not refute those standards, but engages in “other argument” and this is clearly marked in the judge’s comments, although the judge does indicate she thinks it is “too late” to bring up Sodini. NONSENSE. Jurisdiction can be brought up at any time–it is sooooo important.

So, let’s all keep the momentum going by encourging Jo and Yo to sign the declarations and get them back by the next August court date.

Gloria should motion up her Motion to Dismiss/Non suit for lack of jurisdiction, attach a copy of Sodini, a copy of the declarations and the transcript page clearly showing no jurisdiction.

take care all gentle readers.

Gloria can do this. She already whacked Carolyn upside the head with Judge Garber last week. She can do it again.

JoAnne

Cost of Corruption May 2012 – $90,000!

Posted on July 13, 2012 by Joanne M Denison

DENISON & ASSOCS

what does it cost to produce this blog and publicize the corrupt errors and transgressions against the innocent in the Probate court of cook county? $90,000 so far.

Transcripts go missing…or just simply being hidden?

Posted on July 13, 2012 by Joanne M Denison

Transcripts are always important for any trial case, especially one that is as highly contested and contorted as the Mary G Sykes case. After ordering a transcript form the official court reporters for the court date, March 18, 2011, an AFFIDAVIT from SUSAN COSGROVE was mailed to Denison and Assocs saying it was IMPOSSIBLE to produce the transcript for that date because she could not READ the stenographic notes (something she is paid and trained to do).

It’s funny how the truth always comes out in the end because on July 12, 2012, Ken’s law assistant actually sent that transcript to us via email. THEY ordered the transcript and got it but we could not. Did someone tell the court reporters not to give us that transcript? What is happening here?

Attached is the affidavit from SUSAN COSGROVE and the front page of the the transcript that was “impossible to produce” (There are 162 pages in all to be uploaded in another post)

Gloria’s email to Ms Lea Black requesting for all documents received that proves Sodini Requirements were met

Posted on July 13, 2012 by Joanne M Denison

Dear Lea Black,

With the recent passing of legislation to protect seniors from neglect and abuses that passed committee, it is even more urgent that you/the ARDC forward to me all documents received that proved that Sodini requirements were rightly met in and regarding the Mary G. Sykes case: that the Probate Court had/has jurisdiction. I had heard rumblings yesterday that the Senate Committee on Aging had passed the bill but it had no yet been publicized: it was this morning. Saving the life of my mother, her due process and my due process, et all, fulfill the criteria to expedite this request: that as a journalist I have three media projects pending, with an article, once I receive the documents from your office, that will be published nationally!

Failure to comply with this request is against the statues: ignoring my complaints against Adam Stern, Cynthia Farenga, Peter Schmiedel and Deborah Jo Soehlig in order to protect another person, or to cover up the crimes of guardianship abuse against my mother — and clearly against other elders in Chicago, is a crime and unforgivable. I await your response: I will pick up the documents at 4 pm on Monday the 16th of July 2012 unless otherwise notified.

I also understand that a national award winning investigative report is in the making and about to be aired. Guardians and Guardian Ad Litems can hide behind their buddies of the ARDC and political elite, but they cannot run from the truth. Please provide me verification including proof of service that Yolanda Bakken, Josephine Bakken and me, Gloria Jean Sykes were served notice of the Carolyn Toerpe petition for Guardianship and subsequent hearing and that all people fulfilled the requirements of the Sodini notices which is jurisdictional. The ARDC would have had to have these notices in order to ignore, dismiss, deny all complaints which were many against attorneys Peter Schmiedel, Adam Stern, Cynthia Farenga, Deborah Jo Soehlig, Harvey Jack Waller, and Joel Brodsky.

Healthy Regards,
Klobuchar legislation to protect seniors from neglect and abuse passes committee | Hometown Source

Illinois Law as it relates to Incompetency

Posted on July 13, 2012 by Joanne M Denison

During the Marg G Sykes Hearing on July 6, 2012, Dr Shaw endlessly ranted on about his version of the term competency. He continuously justified his reasons for declaring Mary Sykes incompetent. Here is a very articulate and well written article written by Ken that demonstrates why this is just all wrong!

PROOF OF INCOMPETENCY

1. Statute:

Currentness

§ 11a-3. Adjudication of disability; Power to appoint guardian.

(a) Upon the filing of a petition by a reputable person or by the alleged disabled person himself or on its own motion, the court may adjudge a person to be a disabled person, but only if it has been demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that the person is a disabled person as defined in Section 11a-2. NB NOTE THE STANDARD OF PROOF SET BY THE STATUTE. This does not allow for Mr. Stern, Ms Farenga, et al .to make an agreement to allow for the appointment of their favorite as the plenary guardian. If the court adjudges a person to be a disabled person, the court may appoint (1) a guardian of his person, if it has been demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that because of his disability he lacks sufficient understanding or capacity to make or communicate responsible decisions concerning the care of his person, or (2) a guardian of his estate, if it has been demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that because of his disability he is unable to manage his estate or financial affairs, or (3) a guardian of his person and of his estate.

(b) Guardianship shall be utilized only as is necessary to promote the well-being of the disabled person, to protect him from neglect, exploitation, or abuse, and to encourage development of his maximum self-reliance and independence. Guardianship shall be ordered only to the extent necessitated by the individual’s actual mental, physical and adaptive limitations. NB. As Mary Sykes passed a written examination that was administered by the Secretary of State shortly before the petition was filed – the total deprivation of her privileges and immunities was not authorized by statute. IL ST CH 755 § 5/11a-3

2. Procedure:

A petition for the appointment of a guardian of the estate or of the person, or both, of a disabled person may be filed by any reputable person or by the disabled person himself or herself.1 The petition must state, if known or reasonably ascertainable:

— the relationship and interest of the petitioner to the respondent;2
— the name, date of birth, and place of residence of the respondent;3
— the reasons for the guardianship;4
— the name and post office address of the respondent’s guardian, if any;5 or of the respondent’s agent or agents appointed under the Illinois Power of Attorney Act;6
— the names and post office addresses of the nearest relatives of the respondent, in the following order:
1. the spouse, adult children, parents, and adult siblings, if any, if none;
2. the nearest adult kindred known to the petitioner;7 See: In re: Sodini The Courts have ruled this jurisdictional and in particular this prevents the railroading of a vulnerable person into bondage. Having the family know about the proceedings and having 14 days to prepare they can obtain counsel and address the fact that the person appointed as plenary guardian by the agreement of Mr. Stern, Ms. Farenga et al was the very person may sought a protective order against.
— the name and address of the person with whom, or the facility in which, the respondent is residing;8
— the approximate value of the personal property and real estate;9
— the amount of the anticipated annual gross income and other receipts;10
— the name, post office address, and, in case of an individual, the age and occupation of the proposed guardian and his or her relationship to the respondent.11

In addition, if the petition seeks the appointment of a previously appointed standby guardian as guardian of the disabled person, the petition must also state:

— the facts concerning the standby guardian’s previous appointment;12 NB. Again the disabled person is protected from a lazy court, or lazy guardian ad litem, or just momentum. Obviously this requirement was ignored in the appointment of CT as plenary guardian. and
— the date of death of the disabled person’s guardian or the facts concerning the consent of the disabled person’s guardian to the appointment of the standby guardian as guardian, or the willingness and ability of the disabled person’s guardian to make and carry out day-to-day care decisions concerning the disabled person.13

A notary public’s failure to sign the jurat on a verification of the petition for guardianship of a disabled person, does not deprive the court of jurisdiction to approve a report of the sale of the disabled person’s real estate, where the notary public administered an oath to the petitioner, and the notary seal and the petitioner’s signature were on the petition.14

Footnotes

755 ILCS 5/11a-3(a).

A person with a financial interest in having an individual determined to be disabled and in having a guardianship created is not precluded from serving as a petitioner in a guardianship proceeding. See In re Betts, 109 Ill. 2d 154, 92 Ill. Dec. 838, 485 N.E.2d 1081 (1985).

755 ILCS 5/11a-8(a).

755 ILCS 5/11a-8(b).

755 ILCS 5/11a-8(c).

755 ILCS 5/11a-8(d).

755 ILCS 45/1-1 et seq.

755 ILCS 5/11a-8(e).

755 ILCS 5/11a-8(f).

755 ILCS 5/11a-8(g).

755 ILCS 5/11a-8(h).

755 ILCS 5/11a-8(i).

755 ILCS 5/11a-8(j).

755 ILCS 5/11a-8(k).

In re Devereux’s Estate, 63 Ill. App. 2d 1, 211 N.E.2d 19 (1st Dist. 1965). 2 Horner Probate Prac. & Estates § 35:8

5/11a-10. Procedures preliminary to hearing

Currentness

§ 11a-10. Procedures preliminary to hearing.

(a) Upon the filing of a petition pursuant to Section 11a-8, the court shall set a date and place for hearing to take place within 30 days. The court shall appoint a guardian ad litem to report to the court concerning the respondent’s best interests consistent with the provisions of this Section, except that the appointment of a guardian ad litem shall not be required when the court determines that such appointment is not necessary for the protection of the respondent or a reasonably informed decision on the petition. If the guardian ad litem is not a licensed attorney, he or she shall be qualified, by training or experience, to work with or advocate for the developmentally disabled, mentally ill, physically disabled, the elderly, or persons disabled because of mental deterioration, depending on the type of disability that is alleged in the petition. The court may allow the guardian ad litem reasonable compensation. The guardian ad litem may consult with a person who by training or experience is qualified to work with persons with a developmental disability, persons with mental illness, or physically disabled persons, or persons disabled because of mental deterioration, depending on the type of disability that is alleged. The guardian ad litem shall personally observe the respondent prior to the hearing and shall inform him orally and in writing of the contents of the petition and of his rights under Section 11a-11. The guardian ad litem shall also attempt to elicit the respondent’s position concerning the adjudication of disability, the proposed guardian, a proposed change in residential placement, changes in care that might result from the guardianship, and other areas of inquiry deemed appropriate by the court. NB Mary appeared in Court and vigorously objected to the guardianship. She filed complaints with the Illinois Department of aging, and others. Mr. Stern made statements directly contradictory to the expressions of Mary Sykes – Documents have surfaced – I presented them and Gloria Sykes presented them that contradict Ms. Stern’s representations.l complaints to the ARDC have fallen on deaf ears – in fact it appears that making these very complaints have resulted in disciplinary proceedings being brought against me. Notwithstanding any provision in the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Confidentiality Act or any other law, a guardian ad litem shall have the right to inspect and copy any medical or mental health record of the respondent which the guardian ad litem deems necessary, provided that the information so disclosed shall not be utilized for any other purpose nor be redisclosed except in connection with the proceedings. At or before the hearing, the guardian ad litem shall file a written report detailing his or her observations of the respondent, the responses of the respondent to any of the inquires detailed in this Section, the opinion of the guardian ad litem or other professionals with whom the guardian ad litem consulted concerning the appropriateness of guardianship, and any other material issue discovered by the guardian ad litem. The guardian ad litem shall appear at the hearing and testify as to any issues presented in his or her report.

(b) The court (1) may appoint counsel for the respondent, if the court finds that the interests of the respondent will be best served by the appointment, and (2) shall appoint counsel upon respondent’s request or if the respondent takes a position adverse to that of the guardian ad litem. NB.Mary has made numerous requests for representation that have been ignored. Interestingly it appears that Stern has on several occasions informed the Court that Mary does not want an attorney. As Mary has made her requests in writing and these requests are part of the record – Mr. Stern’s credibility is sharply in doubt. Once again the actions of Stern and Farenga were reported to the ARDC and fell on deaf ears. The conflict between the GALs and Mary Sykes is legend. The record is replete with breaches of fiduciary relationship – focus on one fact – ‘why are there two GALs in this Estate?’ Now focus on the unbridled and unfounded verbal and written attacks by the GALs (and especially Farenga) on the younger daughter of Mary. Why has Mary’s younger sister been isolated from Mary Sykes. Prior to these events the two were literally joined at the hip! the respondent shall be permitted to obtain the appointment of counsel either at the hearing or by any written or oral request communicated to the court prior to the hearing. The summons shall inform the respondent of this right to obtain appointed counsel. The court may allow counsel for the respondent reasonable compensation.NB. Gloria Sykes has pointed out that the service on Mary was quite interesting. The Sheriff of Cook County was directed by the applicant for plenary guardian to serve Mary in Chicago – however, the applicant had taken Mary to DuPage County. The applicant (CT) made many attempts to get Mary’s doctor to give her a certificate of incompetency for Mary, but her refused. In August 2009 the transcript of proceedings reveals the Court advising CT to fine a more cooperative doctor – she did an Mary received bench service. Ms. Sykes in her investigation determined that the required warnings had not been give Mary Sykes. WHAT IS MOST DISTURBING IS THE FACT THAT EVERY ATTORNEY WHO HAS LOOKED INTO THIS CASE HAS BEEN SUBJECTED TO HARASSMENT. (I will not reiterate what has befallen me!)

(c) If the respondent is unable to pay the fee of the guardian ad litem or appointed counsel, or both, the court may enter an order for the petitioner to pay all such fees or such amounts as the respondent or the respondent’s estate may be unable to pay. However, in cases where the Office of State Guardian is the petitioner, consistent with Section 30 of the Guardianship and Advocacy Act,1where an elder abuse provider agency is the petitioner, pursuant to Section 9 of the Elder Abuse and Neglect Act,2 or where the Department of Human Services Office of Inspector General is the petitioner, consistent with Section 45 of the Abuse of Adults with Disabilities Intervention Act, no guardian ad litem or legal fees shall be assessed against the Office of State Guardian, the elder abuse provider agency, or the Department of Human Services Office of Inspector General.

(d) The hearing may be held at such convenient place as the court directs, including at a facility in which the respondent resides.

NOTICE OF RIGHTS OF RESPONDENT

The date and time of the hearing are:

The place where the hearing will occur is:

The Judge’s name and phone number is:

You have the following legal rights:

(1) You have the right to be present at the court hearing.

(2) You have the right to be represented by a lawyer, either one that you retain, or one appointed by the Judge.

(3) You have the right to ask for a jury of six persons to hear your case.

(4) You have the right to present evidence to the court and to confront and cross-examine witnesses.

(5) You have the right to ask the Judge to appoint an independent expert to examine you and give an opinion about your need for a guardian.

(6) You have the right to ask that the court hearing be closed to the public.

(7) You have the right to tell the court whom you prefer to have for your guardian.

IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT YOU ATTEND THE HEARING IF YOU DO NOT WANT A GUARDIAN OR IF YOU WANT SOMEONE OTHER THAN THE PERSON NAMED IN THE GUARDIANSHIP PETITION TO BE YOUR GUARDIAN. IF YOU DO NOT WANT A GUARDIAN OF IF YOU HAVE ANY OTHER PROBLEMS, YOU SHOULD CONTACT AN ATTORNEY OR COME TO COURT AND TELL THE JUDGE.NB the transcripts reveal that Mary asked for many of these rights and others asked for these right for Mary; however, they were totally ignored. This appears to be a pattern.

Service of summons and the petition may be made by a private person 18 years of age or over who is not a party to the action.

(f) Notice of the time and place of the hearing shall be given by the petitioner by mail or in person to those persons, including the proposed guardian, whose names and addresses appear in the petition and who do not waive notice, not less than 14 days before the hearing.
Credits

P.A. 79-328, § 11a-10, added by P.A. 80-1415, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1979. Amended by P.A. 81-795, § 1, eff. Sept. 16, 1979; P.A. 82-534, § 1, eff. Sept. 16, 1981; P.A. 88-380, § 135, eff. Aug. 20, 1993; P.A. 89-396, § 15, eff. Aug. 20, 1995; P.A. 90-628, § 25, eff. Jan. 1, 1999; P.A. 95-373, § 5, eff. Aug. 23, 2007; P.A. 96-1052, § 5, eff. July 14, 2010; P.A. 97-375, § 15, eff. Aug. 15, 2011.

Formerly Ill.Rev.Stat.1991, ch. 110 ½, ¶ 11a-10.

Relevant Notes of Decisions (41)

View all 65

Notes of Decisions listed below contain your search terms.

Guardian ad litem–In general

A guardian ad litem is not required after a hearing on a mentally disabled adult’s competence or after a plenary guardian of the person is appointed. In re Mark W., App. 1 Dist.2006, 308 Ill.Dec. 656, 371 Ill.App.3d 81, 862 N.E.2d 589, appeal allowed 310 Ill.Dec. 249, 223 Ill.2d 635, 865 N.E.2d 969, reversed 320 Ill.Dec. 798, 228 Ill.2d 365, 888 N.E.2d 15, on remand 2008 WL 2484601. Mental Health Description: Key Number Symbol 488

If the juvenile court is going to appoint a guardian ad litem for a mentally-disabled-adult parent that is a party to a proceeding for termination of parental rights, the appointment should be made pursuant to the Probate Act. In re Mark W., App. 1 Dist.2006, 308 Ill.Dec. 656, 371 Ill.App.3d 81, 862 N.E.2d 589, appeal allowed 310 Ill.Dec. 249, 223 Ill.2d 635, 865 N.E.2d 969, reversed 320 Ill.Dec. 798, 228 Ill.2d 365, 888 N.E.2d 15, on remand 2008 WL 2484601. Infants Description: Key Number Symbol 205; Mental Health Description: Key Number Symbol 487

Guardian ad litem appointed to represent incapacitated adult represents ward’s best interests, rather than ward; guardian ad litem is only required prior to hearing on ward’s competence, although guardian ad litem or next friend may be appointed to represent ward’s interests in subsequent litigation. In re Guardianship of Mabry, App. 4 Dist.1996, 216 Ill.Dec. 848, 281 Ill.App.3d 76, 666 N.E.2d 16, rehearing denied. Mental Health Description: Key Number Symbol 133; Mental Health Description: Key Number Symbol 485.1; Mental Health Description: Key Number Symbol 495

Circuit court is charged with duty to protect interests of ward and has, by statute and otherwise, those powers necessary to appoint guardian ad litem to represent interests of ward during court’s exercise of its jurisdiction. In re Serafin, App. 2 Dist.1995, 208 Ill.Dec. 612, 272 Ill.App.3d 239, 649 N.E.2d 972. Mental Health Description: Key Number Symbol 471; Mental Health Description: Key Number Symbol 487

Attorney’s failure to bring to trial court’s attention conflict in her dual roles as mentally disabled patient’s attorney and guardian resulting from patient’s request to represent herself, which required trial court to consult with guardian to determine whether patient should be allowed to represent herself, could not relieve court of its responsibility for making required appointment of guardian to protect patient’s interest. In re Estate of Ohlman, App. 1 Dist.1994, 197 Ill.Dec. 9, 259 Ill.App.3d 120, 630 N.E.2d 1133. Mental Health Description: Key Number Symbol 133

If patient has already been involuntarily committed as mentally ill and danger to himself or others, court considering whether to appoint guardian must presume that patient is not capable of protecting patient’s interests. In re Estate of Ohlman, App. 1 Dist.1994, 197 Ill.Dec. 9, 259 Ill.App.3d 120, 630 N.E.2d 1133. Mental Health Description: Key Number Symbol 135

Statute governing appointment of guardian ad litem requires court to appoint guardian ad litem unless court has grounds for finding that guardian is not needed. In re Estate of Ohlman, App. 1 Dist.1994, 197 Ill.Dec. 9, 259 Ill.App.3d 120, 630 N.E.2d 1133. Mental Health Description: Key Number Symbol 133

Trial court committed reversible error when it failed to appoint separate guardian ad litem to protect interests of mentally disabled patient once patient asserted right to proceed without assistance of counsel; trial court needed guardian ad litem to help determine whether to appoint counsel for patient against patent’s wishes. In re Estate of Ohlman, App. 1 Dist.1994, 197 Ill.Dec. 9, 259 Ill.App.3d 120, 630 N.E.2d 1133. Mental Health Description: Key Number Symbol 133; Mental Health Description: Key Number Symbol 156

Individual adjudicated disabled adult for whom guardian was appointed as result of petition by his mother was not deprived of his rights by entry of original guardianship order despite lack of compliance with statutorily mandated requirements applicable to disability adjudication including lack of medical report describing nature and extent of individual’s physical and mental disability and presence of individual or representation by guardian ad litem or other counsel at hearing, where there was no contention that individual was not disabled adult under definition of Probate Act and court implemented measures for individual’s protection as result of petition. In re Estate of Steinfeld, 1994, 196 Ill.Dec. 636, 158 Ill.2d 1, 630 N.E.2d 801, certiorari denied 115 S.Ct. 59, 513 U.S. 809, 130 L.Ed.2d 17. Mental Health Description: Key Number Symbol 156

Even under ch. 110, ¶ 54 providing that if party is declared incompetent prosecution or defense shall be maintained by party’s representative, guardian ad litem or next friend, it is not reversible error to fail to appoint guardian ad litem for one for whom actual incompetence has not been formally so adjudged. Freiders v. Dayton, App. 2 Dist.1978, 19 Ill.Dec. 316, 61 Ill.App.3d 873, 378 N.E.2d 1191. Mental Health Description: Key Number Symbol 496

Court before which action was brought for specific performance of contract for purchase of house owned by 85-year-old woman, although it was not required to appoint guardian ad litem for defendant houseowner, was under the circumstances within its power in doing so. Freiders v. Dayton, App. 2 Dist.1978, 19 Ill.Dec. 316, 61 Ill.App.3d 873, 378 N.E.2d 1191. Mental Health Description: Key Number Symbol 487

Appointment of guardian ad litem to act as representative for party in need of such representation is procedural and not jurisdictional matter. Freiders v. Dayton, App. 2 Dist.1978, 19 Ill.Dec. 316, 61 Ill.App.3d 873, 378 N.E.2d 1191. Mental Health Description: Key Number Symbol 488

n.b. Where circuit court on appeal from probate court adjudged alleged incompetent to be competent, probate court could not thereafter hold attorney for alleged incompetent in civil contempt of court for disobedience of orders previously entered by probate court concerning inquiry into mental condition of alleged incompetent or for assisting in denying guardian ad litem free access to alleged incompetent or assisting alleged incompetent to avoid service of process in connection with incompetency proceeding. In re Pine’s Estate, App.1958, 16 Ill.App.2d 584, 149 N.E.2d 787. Contempt Description: Key Number Symbol 49

In considering appointment of a guardian ad litem, the question to be determined is the capacity of the person whose fitness is challenged to intelligently choose counsel and consult and advise with him in conduct of litigation, or capacity to manage and care for the particular business or matter involved. In re Pine’s Estate, App.1958, 16 Ill.App.2d 584, 149 N.E.2d 787. Mental Health Description: Key Number Symbol 488

Generally, there should be no conflicting interest between alleged incompetent and the party representing him as guardian ad litem. In re Pine’s Estate, App.1958, 16 Ill.App.2d 584, 149 N.E.2d 787. Mental Health Description: Key Number Symbol 492

Where proceeding to have an elderly woman declared incompetent was commenced by principal beneficiary under her will in order to prevent her from conveying her property to another, probate court should proceed with extreme caution in exercise of discretion to appoint a guardian ad litem to represent alleged incompetent and only after notice to alleged incompetent. In re Pine’s Estate, App.1958, 16 Ill.App.2d 584, 149 N.E.2d 787. Mental Health Description: Key Number Symbol 133

Circuit court did not abuse its discretion in failing to appoint a guardian ad litem to represent alleged incompetent in proceeding for appointment of a conservator, where alleged incompetent was aware of nature of proceeding and possessed sufficient judgment to select his own counsel to defend his interests. Rankin v. Rankin, App.1944, 54 N.E.2d 58, 322 Ill.App. 90. Mental Health Description: Key Number Symbol 133

Where there has not been a judgment fixing mental status of one of parties to a proceeding alleged to be incompetent, court has power to determine all facts essential to a proper adjudication upon need for a guardian ad litem for such party. Cowdery v. Northern Trust Co., App.1944, 53 N.E.2d 43, 321 Ill.App. 243. Mental Health Description: Key Number Symbol 490

—- Compensation, guardian ad litem

Circuit Court retained authority to award guardianship fees to public guardian who was appointed as temporary guardian for disabled ward, and to ward’s guardian ad litem, even after ward’s death terminated the guardianship; Probate Act explicitly provided for the award of reasonable fees for temporary guardians and guardians ad litem, and nothing in the statutes terminating a guardian’s authority to act for the ward upon the ward’s death deprived the court of power to award fees after the ward’s death. In re Estate of Pellico, App. 2 Dist.2009, 334 Ill.Dec. 12, 394 Ill.App.3d 1052, 916 N.E.2d 45. Mental Health Description: Key Number Symbol 180.1; Mental Health Description: Key Number Symbol 493

Statute on payment of guardian ad litem’s fee in proceeding to appoint guardian for disabled adult clearly expresses that court may assess guardian ad litem fees only against respondent or his or her estate or, in event respondent is unable to pay, against petitioner. In re Estate of Bishop, App. 2 Dist.2002, 268 Ill.Dec. 136, 333 Ill.App.3d 1113, 777 N.E.2d 1059. Mental Health Description: Key Number Symbol 493

Son who filed counter petition in daughters’ proceeding to appoint guardian for their mother, in which son asked that mother not be adjudicated disabled or, in alternative, that son be named her guardian, was “petitioner” for purposes of statute on payment of fees of guardian ad litem by petitioner if respondent is unable to pay; initial petition was filed by daughters, but son inserted himself in matter by filing counter petition and created issues to which guardian ad litem had to respond, namely, whether son should be appointed guardian. In re Estate of Bishop, App. 2 Dist.2002, 268 Ill.Dec. 136, 333 Ill.App.3d 1113, 777 N.E.2d 1059. Mental Health Description: Key Number Symbol 493

Trial court had statutory authority to tax temporary guardian ad litem fees against ward, where court appointed attorney and temporary guardian ad litem to represent ward in proceeding, there was no finding that appointment of guardian ad litem was not necessary, and court determined that ward was able to pay fees, even though there was never finding that ward was disabled, petitioners never sought hearing on petition for appointment of permanent guardian, and case was dismissed for want of prosecution. In re Serafin, App. 2 Dist.1995, 208 Ill.Dec. 612, 272 Ill.App.3d 239, 649 N.E.2d 972. Mental Health Description: Key Number Symbol 158.1

Trial court’s conclusion that disabled adult for whom guardian ad litem was appointed, after adult had refused to consent to surgery, would not pay fees was reasonable, for purpose of determining whether guardian ad litem should be allowed fees, where no one affiliated with hospital or with suit had any contact with adult after she was released from hospital. In re Estate of Stoica, App. 1 Dist.1990, 148 Ill.Dec. 555, 203 Ill.App.3d 225, 560 N.E.2d 1152. Mental Health Description: Key Number Symbol 493

Implicit in each probate act section providing for taxation of costs is necessity for appointment of both guardian of estate of disabled person and guardian ad litem, and where petition forappointment of permanent guardian was dismissed after hearing and private counsel had appeared on behalf of allegedly disabled adult as soon as notice was received of pending hearing on guardianship, relevant provisions of Probate Act furnished no justification for taxation of guardian ad litem and temporary guardian costs to subject of the petition. In Interest of Prior, App. 3 Dist.1983, 72 Ill.Dec. 423, 116 Ill.App.3d 666, 452 N.E.2d 676. Mental Health Description: Key Number Symbol 158.1

Where guardian ad litem had been allowed fee in circuit court for his services as guardian ad litem of incompetent, and Appellate Court was without knowledge of fees customarily charged by members of bar of county where action was brought, and parties did not present evidence on nature and extent of services performed and value thereof, it was proper that award of fee for guardian ad litem on appeal be fixed by circuit court, and Appellate Court would remand cause to circuit court to determine fee on appeal. Cain v. Hougham, App.1969, 116 Ill.App.2d 439, 253 N.E.2d 137. Mental HealthDescription: Key Number Symbol 493

Self-representation

Evidence that mentally disabled patient was totally without understanding or capacity to make responsible decisions concerning her person or her assets required trial court to reverse its prior decision to allow patient to represent herself, absent strong evidence that appointment of counsel was not in patient’s best interest. In re Estate of Ohlman, App. 1 Dist.1994, 197 Ill.Dec. 9, 259 Ill.App.3d 120, 630 N.E.2d 1133. Mental Health Description: Key Number Symbol 133 NB This case points out the conflict that the Court GALs and the Guardians must face. Whenever confronted by any member of the public or Mary herself seeking to assert the statutory and Constitutional Rights the mantra is Mary said she does not want ****(you fill in the blanks). The Court accepts the statement – but, if Mary is indeed incompetent then the rights have to be asserted because she is unable to decide for herself as to whether or not it is in her best interests to waive rights. By not holding the actual hearings that are required by statute and applying the proper standards basic civil rights of the elderly are being ignored. Essentially a Soviet style Gulag has been promulgated. As a matter of law, the court and its appointee have entered into a conspiracy to violate the First, Fifth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constittion. As these actions are ultra vires, the question of immunity is off the table. The Nuerenberg Trials settled this argument.

Counsel

If the guardian ad litem (GAL) for a mentally disabled ward in a probate proceeding and the ward are in agreement, the GAL does in effect represent the ward; however, the court must appoint separate counsel if the ward requests it or if the ward and the GAL take different positions. In re Mark W., App. 1 Dist.2006, 2006 WL 1667495, opinion withdrawn, opinion modified and superseded 308 Ill.Dec. 656, 371 Ill.App.3d 81, 862 N.E.2d 589, appeal allowed 310 Ill.Dec. 249, 223 Ill.2d 635, 865 N.E.2d 969, reversed 320 Ill.Dec. 798, 228 Ill.2d 365, 888 N.E.2d 15, on remand 2008 WL 2484601. Mental Health Description: Key Number Symbol 491 NB The Administration of the programs designed to protect the senior citizen from abuse and exploitatin have demonstrated in not only Sykes, but nationally that the patently untrue statement of the GAL or other appointed person is consider as gosspel

In probate proceedings, if the guardian ad litem and the ward are in agreement, the guardian does in effect represent the ward; however, the court must appoint separate counsel if the ward requests it or if the ward and guardian take different positions. In re Mark W., App. 1 Dist.2006, 308 Ill.Dec. 656, 371 Ill.App.3d 81, 862 N.E.2d 589, appeal allowed 310 Ill.Dec. 249, 223 Ill.2d 635, 865 N.E.2d 969, reversed 320 Ill.Dec. 798, 228 Ill.2d 365, 888 N.E.2d 15, on remand 2008 WL 2484601. Mental Health Description: Key Number Symbol 495The words of the Mark case appear to be mandatory – but ****

Court could appoint counsel for mentally disabled patient who did not request counsel and who took no position adverse to counsel only if it found that appointment was in patient’s best interests. In re Estate of Ohlman, App. 1 Dist.1994, 197 Ill.Dec. 9, 259 Ill.App.3d 120, 630 N.E.2d 1133. Mental Health Description: Key Number Symbol 133

Court could appoint attorney but no guardian ad litem for mentally disabled patient based on determination that attorney could provide protection that would otherwise be guardian’s responsibility, although this required attorney to act as both guardian ad litem and as attorney. In re Estate of Ohlman, App. 1 Dist.1994, 197 Ill.Dec. 9, 259 Ill.App.3d 120, 630 N.E.2d 1133. Mental Health Description: Key Number Symbol 133

Respondent in proceeding to have him declared incompetent has the right to retain his own attorney. In re Pine’s Estate, App.1958, 16 Ill.App.2d 584, 149 N.E.2d 787. Mental Health Description: Key Number Symbol 133

Service of process

Constructive service on person domiciled within state, but located outside borders thereof, held not to give jurisdiction in proceeding in personam for declaration of incompetency and appointmentof conservator for person. McCormick v. Blaine, 1931, 178 N.E. 195, 345 Ill. 461. Mental Health Description: Key Number Symbol 131

Notice

Allegedly disabled adult received reasonable notice of hearing at which petition to appoint public guardian for him would be heard and opportunity to be heard during that proceeding, thus satisfying federal due process; summons and copy of petition were personally served, summons supported conclusion that he was given reasonable notice of hearing, which in turn gave him opportunity to be heard, and he had no known living spouse or adult kindred. Young v. Murphy, N.D. Ill.1995, 883 F.Supp. 256, reconsideration denied 161 F.R.D. 61. Constitutional Law Description: Key Number Symbol 4339; Mental Health Description: Key Number Symbol 130

In an original guardianship proceeding, the nearest living relatives of the alleged disabled adult must be given notice, and failure to give notice to such relatives is a jurisdictional defect requiring vacation of the order appointing a guardian. In re Estate of Debevec, App. 5 Dist.1990, 142 Ill.Dec. 302, 195 Ill.App.3d 891, 552 N.E.2d 1043. Guardian And Ward Description: Key Number Symbol 13(3) Matter of Sodini, App. 4 Dist.1988, 123 Ill.Dec. 67, 172 Ill.App.3d 1055, 527 N.E.2d 530.

Notice to one alleged to be incompetent and his/her close relatives is required before he may be adjudged incompetent and a conservator appointed for him. Matter of Sodini, App. 4 Dist.1988, 123 Ill.Dec. 67, 172 Ill.App.3d 1055, 527 N.E.2d 530. Mental Health Description: Key Number Symbol 128 (notice must be 14 days prior) NB in Illinois like most States the lower Courts are obligated to take direction from the Courts of last resort. as the Appellate Court has ruled that the notice to the close relatives is jurisdictional it is very difficult to rationalize the fact that the close relatives were not afforded notice and Stern, Farenga, Schmiedel continue to act under color of statute to keep Mary Sykes in bondage, not report the dissipation of approximately a million dollars of her assets, isolate her from her friends, family and activities and deny her liberty, property, civil right and human rights. What is also most disturbing is the number of times that Mary Sykes has been rushed to the Emergency Room. Last December she was neglected and lost 10% of her body weight.

Failure of son and granddaughter of woman, in their petition to have woman adjudicated incompetent and to be appointed conservators of her estate, to give notice of time and place of hearing on the petition to other son of woman did not result in fraud upon the court concerning woman’s need for a conservator or petitioners’ qualifications to serve in that capacity. In re Neuf’s Estate, App. 5 Dist.1980, 40 Ill.Dec. 704, 85 Ill.App.3d 468, 406 N.E.2d 907. Mental Health Description: Key Number Symbol 129

Authority of court

The trial court exceeded its authority when it sua sponte appointed a guardian ad litem for two adult former foster children, who had allegedly suffered permanent and severe physical and psychological injury as a result of sexual abuse by their foster fathers, over the objection of the former foster children and their attorney; the trial court never held a competency hearing or declared that former foster children were incompetent or disabled, the doctrine of parens patriae did not apply since former foster children were competent adults, and the trial court failed to comply with the provisions of the Probate Act for appointing a guardian. J.H. v. Ada S. McKinley Community Services, Inc., App. 1 Dist.2006, 308 Ill.Dec. 255, 369 Ill.App.3d 803, 861 N.E.2d 320. Infants Description: Key Number Symbol 1238(1); Infants Description: Key Number Symbol 1240(1); Mental Health Description: Key Number Symbol 487; Mental Health Description: Key Number Symbol 490

Hearings

Statute setting out preliminary procedures for appointment of guardians for disabled adults and providing that hearings were to be held within 30 days of filing of petition was directory, rather than mandatory, and thus failure of trial court to hold hearing within 30 days of filing of petition by son and son-in-law seeking guardianship of mother did not void court’s guardianship order;NB. Time constraints are irrelevant when the object of the guardians are involved. They only apply to limit the objectors (i.e. ordinary citizens exercising their First Amendment Rights) statute did not contain any negative language or provide any sanction or other consequences for failure to conduct hearing within 30 days of filing of petition, and rights of mother would not be injuriously affected by the fact that hearing was not held within statutory time period. (Per McCullough, J., with one justice specially concurring.) In re Estate of Doyle, App. 4 Dist.2005, 297 Ill.Dec. 868, 362 Ill.App.3d 293, 838 N.E.2d 355, rehearing denied, appeal denied 303 Ill.Dec. 2, 218 Ill.2d 539, 850 N.E.2d 807. Mental Health Description: Key Number Symbol 137.1
Footnotes

1 20 ILCS 3955/30.

2 320 ILCS 20/9. 755 I.L.C.S. 5/11a-10, IL ST CH 755 § 5/11a-10

Current through P.A. 97-704 of the 2012 Reg. Sess.

IL ST CH 755 § 5/11a-10

Upon the filing of a petition by a reputable person or by the alleged disabled person himself or on its own motion, the court may adjudge a person to be a disabled person, but only if it has been demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that the person is a disabled person as defined in Section 11a-2. If the court adjudges a person to be a disabled person, the court may appoint (1) a guardian of his person, if it has been demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that because of his disability he lacks sufficient understanding or capacity to make or communicate responsible decisions concerning the care of his person, or (2) a guardian of his estate, if it has been demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that because of his disability he is unable to manage his estate or financial affairs, or (3) a guardian of his person and of his estate. 755 ILCS 5/11a-3(a).

Guardianship shall be utilized only as is necessary to promote the well-being of the disabled person, to protect him from neglect, exploitation, or abuse, and to encourage development of his maximum self-reliance and independence. Guardianship shall be ordered only to the extent necessitated by the individual’s actual mental, physical and adaptive limitations. 755 ILCS 5/11a-3(b).NB: This is a sticking point. A guardianship is not an all or nothing thing. If the Court finds that I am a spendthrift that does not mean that I have to have permission of the plenary guardian to attend the church of my whim and desire or to eat drink and be merry to the full extent of my allowance. The guardian is a ‘crutch’ not a Dominique.

There is a clear distinction between a proceeding to adjudge a person mentally ill and one to adjudge him incompetent. The former relates to an inquiry and determination as to the condition of his mind without special reference to his property. The latter relates to an inquiry and determination as to his habits regarding his disposition to spend, waste or lessen his estate. It is not necessary to find a person to be mentally ill and totally lacking in capacity to manage his affairs. A mild form of mental illness may make a person highly susceptible to certain emotional appeals and incapable of making rational decisions concerning the disposition of his income or his estate. This could constitute waste of his estate and subject him to want and suffering even though the objects of his bounty may be engaged in worthwhile spiritual or religious activities. The test is incapability to manage one’s own affairs so that waste and suffering are inevitable. A person who wanted to liquidate his entire estate and give it to “Christ is the Answer” may properly be found to be incompetent and a conservator appointed. Matter of Langford’s Estate, 50 Ill. App. 3d 623, 7 Ill. Dec. 574, 364 N.E.2d 735 (4th Dist. 1977).

One’s ability to manage his person does not resolve itself upon the question of whether the individual can accomplish tasks without assistance but rather whether the individual has the capability to take care and intelligently direct that all his needs are met through whatever device is reasonably available under the circumstances. Some of the actions which indicate the ability to care for one’s own needs include the appointment of an attorney-in-fact and the selection of a nursing home. The unsubstantiated opinions of witnesses that a person was not capable of taking care of himself or his affairs, without any reasons given for such conclusions will not support an adjudication of incompetency. Matter of McPeak’s Estate, 53 Ill. App. 3d 133, 11 Ill. Dec. 349, 368 N.E.2d 957 (5th Dist. 1977).

The extremes that reviewing courts will go to uphold the order of the trial court refusing to appoint a guardian for the estate and person is Galvin’s Estate v. Galvin, 112 Ill. App. 3d 677, 68 Ill. Dec. 370, 445 N.E.2d 1223 (1st Dist. 1983), wherein the alleged incompetent had strokes, had a pet black widow spider, believed he could fire by pointing his finger, and that he was a coworker with the Shah of Iran.

Although a person may be disabled in the statutory sense of not being fully able to manage her person, a guardian of her person is not permissible or appropriate if that person is capable of making and communicating responsible decisions concerning the care of her person, even though the appointment of a guardian of her estate is appropriate. The adjudication of disability is a uniquely factual determination. It is to be made by the trial court. It is not to be disturbed upon review unless the trial court’s findings are against the manifest weight of the evidence. In re Estate of Hickman, 208 Ill. App. 3d 265, 153 Ill. Dec. 31, 566 N.E.2d 881 (4th Dist. 1991).

20 Ill. Prac., Estate Planning & Admin. § 279:4 (4th ed.)

§ 35:4. Appointment

After compliance with statutory procedures regarding a hearing and notice to the respondent, a court must appoint a plenary guardian of the person or the estate, or both, of one adjudged to be a disabled person if the court finds that limited guardianship will not provide sufficient protection for the disabled person, his or her estate, or both.1 A plenary guardian is one who has the general care and control of the person and estate of a ward.2 A guardian may also be appointed for a limited purpose if the court finds that guardianship is necessary for the protection of the disabled person, his or her estate, or both.3 The guardian of the estate of a ward need not participate in or review the prosecution of an action on behalf of the ward where the attorney’s fees will be determined solely on a contingency basis.4

The justification for the appointment of a guardian is founded primarily on the incapability of managing one’s person or estate, and not on the cause of that incapability.5 The purpose ofappointing a guardian for a disabled person is to protect that person from personally wasting his or her estate or allowing others to do so.6 The question is not whether the person can accomplish specific tasks, but rather whether the person has the capability to take care of himself or herself, or intelligently direct that his or her needs are met through whatever device is reasonably available under the circumstances.7 It is not imperfection of mentality per se which justifies the appointment of a guardian, but rather the inability to manage one’s person or estate due to that imperfection of mentality.8 Thus, a trial court errs when it appoints a guardian over the respondent’s person after adjudicating the respondent a disabled person within the meaning of the Probate Act of 1975 where the respondent is able to manage his or her own person, even though the respondent’s lifestyle is eccentric.9

Where the court has the statutory authority to adjudicate a person as a disabled person and to appoint a guardian, the court’s failure to follow the statutory procedure in making the adjudication could render the order voidable.10 However, the failure to follow statutory requisites does not render the order void from the outset.11
Footnotes

755 ILCS 5/11a-12(b).

In re Estate of Steinfeld, 158 Ill. 2d 1, 196 Ill. Dec. 636, 630 N.E.2d 801 (1994) (sibling had standing to challenge disability and guardianship order).

In re Estate of Byrd, 227 Ill. App. 3d 632, 169 Ill. Dec. 772, 592 N.E.2d 259 (1st Dist. 1992).

In re Guardianship of Austin, 245 Ill. App. 3d 1042, 185 Ill. Dec. 852, 615 N.E.2d 411 (4th Dist. 1993).

Appointment of a limited guardian restricted to the investment of the respondent’s inheritance is proper, where the respondent does not lack all capacity to understand or manage day-to-day financial needs. Estate of Barr, 142 Ill. App. 3d 428, 96 Ill. Dec. 781, 491 N.E.2d 1241 (1st Dist. 1986).

755 ILCS 5/11a-18(c).

In re Stevenson’s Estate, 44 Ill. 2d 525, 256 N.E.2d 766 (1970).

Matter of Estate of Kutchins, 169 Ill. App. 3d 641, 120 Ill. Dec. 114, 523 N.E.2d 1025 (1st Dist. 1988).

See Matter of McPeak’s Estate, 53 Ill. App. 3d 133, 11 Ill. Dec. 349, 368 N.E.2d 957 (5th Dist. 1977); In re Dunning, 211 Ill. App. 633, 1918 WL 1982 (2d Dist. 1918), Leefers v. People ex rel. Leefers, 123 Ill. App. 634, 1906 WL 1592 (3d Dist. 1906).

In re Stevenson’s Estate, 44 Ill. 2d 525, 256 N.E.2d 766 (1970); Galvin’s Estate v. Galvin, 112 Ill. App. 3d 677, 68 Ill. Dec. 370, 445 N.E.2d 1223 (1st Dist. 1983).

Estate of Barr, 142 Ill. App. 3d 428, 96 Ill. Dec. 781, 491 N.E.2d 1241 (1st Dist. 1986).

Estate of Steinfeld, 233 Ill. App. 3d 715, 175 Ill. Dec. 12, 599 N.E.2d 1026 (1st Dist. 1992), judgment aff’d in part, rev’d in part on other grounds, 158 Ill. 2d 1, 196 Ill. Dec. 636, 630 N.E.2d 801 (1994).

Estate of Steinfeld, 233 Ill. App. 3d 715, 175 Ill. Dec. 12, 599 N.E.2d 1026 (1st Dist. 1992), judgment aff’d in part, rev’d in part, 158 Ill. 2d 1, 196 Ill. Dec. 636, 630 N.E.2d 801 (1994).

2 Horner Probate Prac. & Estates § 35:4

Reviewing the file again–soooo very much to find and so very little time!

Posted on July 12, 2012 by Joanne M Denison

Dear Ken:

Well, spending 6 hours today working on that file was interesting. Apparently the PS/HW are, as suspected, very light on taking care of paperwork.

I know you will be very surprised to learn of the following:

1) PS’s Motion to Declare the Apportionment Agreement Null and Void was not filed until May 20, 2011–well past the sec 1401 two year limitations period. No surprise there. What is surprising is that Joel Brodsky told the court and PS that back in August of 2010, giving the miscreants a couple of months to file the motion, and they clearly blew it. There are transcripts where PS has misrepresented to the court that the “apportionment agreement” was merely a private agreement between 2 parties, it was not a court order, and therefore it could be set aside. All lies. The miscreants have stood by and said nothing while PS lied about all that. Kevin Salaam’s affidavit clearly said it was filed with the court and became part of the final settlement order.

2) During the last hearing, PS told the court that all of Gloria’s witnesses and exhibits were stricken and he had a court order. He said that Gloria did not turn over her list of exhibits and witnesses on time. Gloria vehemently denied that. I could find no court order providing a date for the parties to exchange witness lists and exhibits, I could not find anyone’s witness/exhibit list on file (tho Gloria said she emailed hers to PS, she should have offered to pop open her laptop and show the court on a secure server that she sent those off via email.

PS lies about the court records all the time. Gloria objected to all of this at the last court hearing, and said PS was lying, but then later she forgot about all of it.

PS has also told the court that Gloria’s Requests to Admit were stricken, but again, there is no court order to that effect either I could find.

3) Sometime in June 2010, Gloria brought up the issue of Sodini notices not being given and that the court replied “I believe that Judge Connors reviewed that issue and I will not do it again.” However, the law is that jurisdiction is soooo very important it must be explored each time it is brought up and the court must patiently listen. I have now very carefully reviewed the court’s records, I have spent about 6 hours, and there is no court order making any findings of fact or conclusions of law on subject matter jurisdiction. We will provide declarations to that effect.

I personally think a motion for perjury should be in order against PS. He has lied regarding just about every main issue that was presented in Probate–the jurisdiction, the apportionment, striking Gloria’s witnesses. You name it, he lies about it. Unfortunately, perjury is really not possible regarding an atty in court. Opposing counsel (Gloria) should be filing pleadings and demanding justice on a regular basis.

For the next court date she should put all of the above in writing and bring it to the court’s attention and demand a date to bring her witnesses and exhibits to court. She should have her own witness that mini-mentals casually mentioned in a medical report are not conclusive evidence of incompetency, etc.

thanks for all your help

joanne

What’s up with Lea Black and the dog and a simple deposition?

Posted on July 9, 2012 by Joanne M Denison

Dear Readers;

I have to tell you I cannot figure out any of this at all. Now LB is accusing Gloria of saying July 5, 2012 was a date previously provided to her, and that’s why LB is having fits because Gloria wants to change it?

What’s up with that?

Even assuming arguendo that Gloria told LB that July 5, 2012 was good for her deposition, when LB sent out the notice of deposition and Gloria responded it was not a good date, LB should have accommodated her. After all, it’s not a hearing, it’s just a deposition and those are easily changed. No one should care 5, 6 or 7 days in advance. Heck, I’ve even had deponents that had to go to the hospital with a close family member at the last minute, and I’ve changed and accommodated the deponent.

Attorneys pretty much have to go to work every day. I don’t understand what difference a few days or even weeks matter. A true funny story. I had a case where on or about February 1st, a Jewish deponent said holidays were coming up and he couldn’t do a deposition until 3rd week in April. Not kidding. And he wasn’t even a Rabbi or anything connected with a house of worship, he just wanted to skip 10 weeks! We actually had to extend discovery to accommodate that one!

So I don’t get LB. And the thing with the dog is even dumber. Why should she care if Shaggy is trained, untrained, certified, uncertified or even decertified? She knows that Carolyn took all of Gloria’s during the wrongful eviction action she filed and effectuated. And Gloria wrote LB right away with a number of alternative dates.

What a crazy, out of control case. The parties are supposed to work together on dates. LB should be nice about the dog thing. (Everyone in my building seems to have a dog, and those dogs go to work, and well, I actually like that. We’ve had a chocolate lab, a standard poodle, a German shephard and a few other types of dogs that have come to work with doggie mom or dad and I see no problems).

I personally would NEVER ask anyone with a “service animal”–dog, cat, pocket pooch, bird, whatever, to produce documents and certifications. How rude. If someone needs a service animal that means they have an unfortunate condition and everyone should accommodate with the fewest questions. Gloria is no exception.

Perhaps LB is worried Shaggy will make everyone laugh and smile and not worry about the ARDC’s dumb, trumped up case against an innocent, hard working attorney. Well, that would be a benefit.

Read on for Gloria’s interesting response to all of this…

And again, LB is making a huge mistake to make a civil war out of deposition dates. Most judges would never tolerate such behavior and they would force LB to take a date of Gloria’s choosing if it were brought to the court’s attention. Nastiness, lack of understanding and accommodation against a member of the public is seldom tolerated in court. An ARDC proceeding should be no exception. Someone needs to stop acting shady and start acting like a lady.

take care

joanne

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Jul 9, 2012 3:14 PM
To: probate sharks , NASGA , matt senator kirk
Cc: JoAnne M Denison , Lawrence Hyman
Subject: Fw: Ms. Lea Black – deposition of Gloria Jean SykesTh

The letter attached to Ms. Sykes’ e-mail is about as unprofessional a communication as can be imagined. If you maintain a book of examples of do and do nots the Letter attached to Ms. Sykes e-mail is one of the Do nots.

The Sykes case and similar cases are clearly not helping the reputation of the legal profession! When the victims and the family members of victims are treated to the discourtesy of the attached letter it is clear that civility is no longer one of the criterion of 2nd oldest profession. In these Elder Abuse cases the attached letter is the rule and not the exception It appears that Greylord is not dead and the defensiveness that is exhibited by those defending the current status quo is so pernicious that any reasonable person has to ask – what are they hiding? Only an honest investigation by law enforcement will disclose that fact.

Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

—– Forwarded Message —–
From: GLORIA Jean SYKES <gloami@msn.com>
To: aRDC chicago <13125652320@myfax.com>

Sent: Monday, July 9, 2012 2:22 PM
Subject: RE: Ms. Lea Black – deposition of Gloria Jean Sykes

Ms. Black,

The science behind LIES is quite extensive and today, our body language, facial expressions and ‘tones’ of our voices, all are tracks leading to the truth: also the words and phrases we chose when we are writing letters, also give an unveiled look into the author’s mind: lies have consequences, Ms. Black. Therefore, I reject your letter (undated) with the envelop dated June 2, 2009 as it is loaded with LIES, and misquotes, which is a common practice in communications (written and verbal) by you, your colleagues at the ARDC as well as your buddies, attorneys Cynthia Farenga, Adam Stern, Peter Schmiedel, Joel Brodsky, Deborah Jo Soehlig, and Harvey Jack Waller: using your paralegal Amy Brown as a witness to what I said or didn’t say is an embarrassment to not only to the few decent attorneys world wide, but also treason against the United States and Illinois Constitutions (not to forget, extreme violations of the Professional Codes of Ethics)! Ms. Black, I have made plans and fulfilled 100% of them for the 4th of July since 1994! It is atrocious that you or any person questions that I (or any person) makes ‘plans’ for the Fourth of July holiday!

But let’s start with the mail delivery. The letter you or somebody at the ARDC wrote that was in the envelop I just received on the 7th July, 2012, was not dated: however, the envelope is dated and I will copy and provide to the U.S. Postal Inspector for his on going investigation into the thievery of my mail (which attorney Peter Schmiedel has actually brought mail addressed to me to the State Probate Division and the Federal Bankruptcy Court). Do the math.

Next only under great intimidation and threats by you to have the Illinois Supreme Court find me in contempt of court did I argue that “if you are threatening me with contempt by the Illinois Supreme Court to change my holiday plans, I will, but you will have to make reasonable accommodations for my companion healing pooch, et al. You, Ms. Black then told me you would reschedule but only if I faxed you over a copy of my travel plans. I told you that my travel plans are none of your business. You then started to yell at me, quite patronizing and unprofessional, and I clearly told you to ‘calm’ yourself and explained that I was going to ‘hang up’ which I did. Your maliciousness in scheduling refusing to pick another date (which I’ve provided you at least four dates) for this deposition is quite telling: as I have said before, Ms. Black, you can’t handle the truth so in order to not have the truth on record by deposition (although you have a copy of my affidavit which I stand by), Ms. Black you believe you can continue the LIE in order to prosecute attorney Kenneth Ditkowsky. I told you and I told Kenneth Ditkowsky, since he is the person you continue to give notice and make arrangements, I would only participate in a deposition if reasonable accommodations were made for Shaggy, my companion healing pooch.

I also requested of Mr. Larkin that he or you demand that your buddies Deborah Jo Soehlig, Peter Schmiedel or any attorney at Fischel and Kahn who represent Carolyn Toerpe, have the named respondent to a petition for a protective order (actually TWO petitions for protective orders) return all of my personal, professional medical and legal files and I will present to the Administrator any credentials you would like for my dog Shaggy: I’ll even give you copies of CDs with national TV coverage of me and my pooch. Hell, Ms. Black! Shaggy even escorted me into the Halls of Congress (in DC), and Congressman Poe thanked Shaggy and gave him upfront notice before he gave his 2011 speech on the “prevention of Elder Abuse”! Furthermore, Shaggy’s been inside churches, department stores, on tennis courts and inside tennis clubs, and will be my guest at a Cubs game! He can fly and get a seat next to me in any airline, can travel on the train, and there are many restaurants in DC, LA and NY which Shaggy not only joins me for lunch or dinner, but he is given a doggy menu — and no, it’s inside. Suffice, Ms. Black not all disabilities are eyes and ears and you are in violations of the ADA Title II — but then you are blinded to any truths and have been and continue to play deaf to the facts.

To close, Ms. Black, I reject the most recent letter I received from you because it is filled with LIES and misrepresentations of the TRUTH. The Reader once wrote an article about my mother and titled it, “You Can’t Fool Mary G. Sykes’. Well, you can’t fool me, or even an educationally challenged child. In conspiracy with your buddies, attorneys Adam Stern, Cynthia Farenga, and Peter Schmiedel you created a situation where you (and your buddies) knew I was unavailable and when I called you on it, you intimidated me through threats: you yelled and demonized me and then, when I still wouldn’t turn over my “travel plans” you reported to attorney Kenneth Ditkowsky that you would have me barred from testifying in September as Mr. Ditkowsky’s witness. (Coincidently, you have served Scott Evans and not only given him proper 14 day notice of service, but also, you have changed the dates of his deposition at least twice and are working with him so each one of you are available!). Witness tampering is a crime, Ms. Black: so is veiled threats and words and phrases of intimidation written in letters littered with LIES that benefit you and your buddies Cynthia Farenga, Adam Stern, Peter Schmiedel and Deborah Jo Soehlig! I will not be bullied. My affidavit is on file and I will testify in order to save the life of my mother!

You cannot be trusted, Ms. Black.

Rightfully Submitted,

Gloria Jean Sykes

PS.

My Mother, Mary G. Sykes asked me to find attorney Kenneth Ditkowsky and hire him to protect her from Carolyn Toerpe. That, Ms. Black is my mother’s right. You should be protecting her, not your attorney friends for their financial gain… or maybe, it’s your financial gain too. I don’t know but what I do know is when a person accuses another person of the crimes they’re committing, he or she tend to feel and look very empowered — relieved and saved from punishment. You and your friends are cancers, Ms. Black, but even late stage cancers can be cured, I know… therefore, I gave you dates that I was available a week or so ago and your response was to threatened Kenneth Ditkowsky that you will have me banned from testifying. Suffice, I am not holding those dates for you and therefore, if you decide to do the right thing, contact me so we can go over our calendars together and come up with a mutual date for the deposition. In the meantime, I have a deadline on the first draft of “The W****s of Justice v. Mary G. Sykes at 90” — of which there is a whole chapter on the ARDC. I will incorporate the attached letter with all of the emails and letters written so far. It is mind-blowing that the Illinois Supreme Court has become a bully, too, just because of attorneys such as yourself, Ms. Black.)

Gloria Jean Sykes
Bon Ami Productions, Inc.

MaryGSykes.com

Monthly Archives: July 2012

A Motion to Dismiss/Non Suit for 09 P 4585 prepared just for Gloria

A letter from Ken to Mr Moossy, Head of Civil Rights Division

Carolyn Toerpe VS Gloria Sykes 7/13/2012

For Cynthia Farenga–Motion to Dismiss/Non Suit for Lack of Sodini Jurisdiction

From Gloria–a good explanation of the start of the case.

My fax to Diane Saltoun, Executive Directior at the Illinois Atty General

Answer to a Question from Scott Evans and the significance of lacking jurisdiction/Sodini notices

From Atty Ditkowsky to GAL Atty Cynthia Farenga

String of Emails between Ken and Cynthia tells it all…..

An Elderly Sister signs a declaration-Proof that the proper Sodini Notices were not SERVED

Updates about the Court banning the use of laptops

Comments about PURGING OF FILES from Ken and Joanne

Sons of Greylord, born of the Illinois ARDC

Lea Black’s Petition to BAR Gloria from testifying at Ken’s proceeding against the ARDC

ARDC Petition to BAN Gloria as a witness in Ken Ditkowsky’s case against ARDC

What exactly IS the definition of theft? LB was asking Scott the other day.

Lumbermen’s vs Gloria Sykes: exparte orders (not on file) and Peter Schmiedel’s threats and lawlessness

Joanne’s fax to [agency], [entity] and [agency2]

Comments from Ken Ditkowsky on MISSING documents and pleadings in 09 P 4585

A complete list of all files in Mary G Sykes case. Please note all the missing documents

Missing Appellate Volume: ALL 13 OF THEM

Motion in Limine

More disturbing reports from other blogs regarding the 18th floor of the Daley Center

Keeping Gloria on that good roll of court wins!

Cost of Corruption May 2012 – $90,000!

Transcripts go missing…or just simply being hidden?

Gloria’s email to Ms Lea Black requesting for all documents received that proves Sodini Requirements were met

Illinois Law as it relates to Incompetency

Reviewing the file again–soooo very much to find and so very little time!

What’s up with Lea Black and the dog and a simple deposition?