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

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

1 thought on “A Motion to Dismiss/Non Suit for 09 P 4585 prepared just for Gloria

  1. This comment is from Gloria, my comments are in [brackets]

    I will not be filling this document or any document prepared by attorneys I have not retained and do not plan on retaining [Why, are you really that fussy about where your legal documents come from, you are willing to keep your mother hostage! Get over it. Your mother needs to go free. The source does not matter!]

    As a pro se litigant [that says a lot, read my next comment], I have filed numerous documents asking for the court to vacate orders and dismiss guardians ad litem Cynthia Farenga and Adam Stern, as well as acknowledge that the guardinship is non-existant as the court had and has no subject matter jurisdiction, and Carolyn Toerpe is also a named respondent to a petition for a protective order: the court, however does have jurisdiction over Carolyn Toerpe in and regarding TWO petitions for protective orders that Toerpe somehow had transferred to the Probate Court: neither of those petitions can be found on the docket; however, the transfer orders are on the docket from the Domestic Relation’s court and I have copies! That said, should I file and present any further motions to the Probate court that I feel are appropriate and necessary, I will prepare such documents. However, since I stand strong on the fact that there is no guardianship, the court has no jurisdiction, it is in my opinion a disadvantage to even stand before the court. [Except for the fact you have not brought a clear enough document before the court with the proper Notice of Motion, Motion, Certificate of Service, courtesy copies to the court, etc. and an independent declaration from one sister–get going! Go look at the docket sheet published on the blog to see there is nothing like this in the court’s files. You think you did something that was correct with the correct format, but look at the Table of Court Orders/transcripts/pleadings and show us all–it’s not there, yet…].

    The court is aware that it has no jurisdiction [the judge thinking about something and you thinking about something does not get it done. You have to file a Motion, Notice of Motion, Certificate of Service and it has to be in the right format to get it done.] and therefore, it has a duty to acknowledge the void orders and void appointment order that was generated by and through the agreement of TWO GAL’s and the named respondent to a protective order, Carolyn Toerpe. AGain, I do not file motions, petitions, et al authored by attorneys who (1) I have not retained and therefore, (2) are not a part of this case, as I am but an interested party and repeatedly told by Judge Stuart I cannot file any motions and I have no standing in the case.

    [By that logic, then no can or should ever use a legal forms book. But there are hundreds of them in use for hundreds of years! Legal forms are not copyrightable. If you are going to be pro se, do you homework, use a legal forms book, get it done and get it done right!]

    That said, it is interesting that as a non-party with no standing, Adam Stern, Cynthia Farenga, and Peter Schmiedel are able to freeze my assets, coerce my financial adviser and financial institutions into turning over confidential financial information, and that all three have prevented me from seeing and talking to my mother and of course, my mother seeing or talking to me. [Because you have not filed this motion. Let’s stipulate to that, and I’ll let you get done with your comments]. These THREE attorneys also have filed documents with the Federal Courts that misrepresent the facts and fraud the Federal Courts. Such lawlessness will be brought to the attoention of the courts and the U.S. Trustee Fraud Divison, however, the most important issue at hand is the well-being of my mother, who not only authored the first petition for an order of protection against and naming Carolyn Toerpe the abuser and financial exploiter, but also repeatedly objected to the guardianship before the court. All said, Cynthia Farenga Adam Stern and Peter Schmiedel then paid court friendly medical hack, Dr. G. Shaw to testify that my mother was incompetent in 2008, when in fact my mother’s own doctor Patel out of Resurrection Hospital, refused to sign the CCP 211 three times in 2009 and wrote Toerpe a letter stating that my mother directed him to “not sign” the document that gave Toerpe financial control of mother’s estate and property as Mother ‘made sense’ out of any topic and could communicate on any subject matter”. This letter to Toerpe is dated June 15, 2009 and on June 30, 2009 Toerpe told the Domestic Relations Court Judge Kriby that Mother was in need of a guardian and *****. Coincidentally, Toerpe’s friend the former Judge Gloria Coco was the supervising Judge of the Domestic Relations Court at the Harrison Street Courthouse. Fred Toerpe’s son Robert is a Deputy Sheriff with DuPage County. Mother’s petition for the order of protection to stop Toerpe from doing all that the court has sanctioned Toerpe to accomplish, was easily transferred and then lost in the Probate Division and the Cook County Sheriffs helped Toerpe kidnap mother from the Harrison street Courthouse. No coincidences here, but then, I’m way a head of myself.

    No, I am not filing any documents authored by an attorney I have not and will not retain. [okay, well you need to get over that. Your mother is far more important! And besides CF didn’t like it either and it ticked her off to no end, but you pride yourself on being above her, don’t you?] That said, I am, however filing many documents over the next two weeks in both the State and Fed. Courts.

    [Gloria’s Comment was edited for typos only].

    My response: Gloria you CAN do this. Note the flurry of emails I got from CF over this. It’s a clue to you. Take that clue and run with it. I even prepared a blank form for you so you don’t have to feel like your scamming a custom doct from me. Get going. Get over a lot of this stuff. It’s not important in the long run. If it bugs you, go have a glass of wine.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s