Monthly Archives: July 2012

Cost of corruption — $55,000.00!

Posted on by
Reply

Dear Readers;

As many of you know, corruption in our Cook County Circuit court costs all of us millions and millions of dollars per year.  That is what happens when justice is not done.

Attorneys are not just supposed to just “walk on by” when they see corruption, but sadly about as many do as the general public does when corruption is seen.  To complicate the matter further, when, as in this case the corruption is reported over and over but nothing is done because it apparently reaches the highest levels in the state, city and county, the costs and problems become harder and harder to solve.

Take a look below and see what corruption costs in terms of me running this blog when there are other consumer protection suits I want to be involved in.

take care

JoAnne

DENISON & ASSOCS, PC.
FEDERAL LITIGATION, PATENTS, TRADEMARKS AND COPYRIGHTS
1512 N FREMONT ST, #202    PHONE 312-553-1300
CHICAGO, IL 60642    FAX 312-553-1307
JoAnne M. Denison✬    JoAnne@DenisonLaw.com
JoAnne Cell Phone 773-255-7608
http://www.DenisonLaw.com
✬–Admitted NC (Inactive) & US Patent Bar    *–Admitted US Patent Bar

Invoice submitted to:

http://www.costofcorruption.info

May 31, 2012

Come see our website at http://www.DenisonLaw.com. Pay your bill online – click on “Pricing” Tab.
Pay your bill by Visa, MasterCard, Discover, American Express, check by fax/phone/email or Paypal
Payment due in 30 days

Professional Services

Hours    Rate    Amount

4/1/2012    JMD    MARY G SYKES BLOG    0.75    $300.00/hr    225.00
Preparing 2 posts for blog.
JMD    MARY G SYKES BLOG    4.50    $300.00/hr    1,350.00
Emails regarding the taking of JMD’s computer, court sanctioned
elder abuse, and copyright infringement. (18 emails)
4/2/2012    JMD    MARY G SYKES BLOG    5.00    $300.00/hr    1,500.00
Emails to and from client and Attorney Ditkowsky regarding the
ARDC witness list, updating the blog, and court sanctioned elder
abuse. (24 emails)
4/3/2012    JMD    MARY G SYKES BLOG    2.50    $300.00/hr    750.00
Emails to and from client and Attorney Ditkowsky regarding the
ARDC Complaint and updating the blog. (16 emails)
4/4/2012    JMD    MARY G SYKES BLOG    1.00    $300.00/hr    300.00
Preparing posts for blog. (6 emails)
JMD    MARY G SYKES BLOG    0.25    $300.00/hr    75.00
Emails to and from client and Attorney Ditkowsky regarding updating
the blog.
4/5/2012    JMD    MARY G SYKES BLOG    1.00    $300.00/hr    300.00
Preparing posts for blog.
JMD    MARY G SYKES BLOG    1.50    $300.00/hr    450.00
Emails to and from client and Attorney Ditkowsky regarding the
ARDC Complaint (15 emails).
4/6/2012    JMD    MARY G SYKES BLOG    1.00    $300.00/hr    300.00
Preparing blog posts and petitions post. (4 emails)
4/7/2012    JMD    MARY G SYKES BLOG    0.50    $300.00/hr    150.00
Emails to and from Attorney Ditkowsky regarding elder abuse and
the ARDC Interview. (6 emails)
4/8/2012    JMD    MARY G SYKES BLOG    0.50    $300.00/hr    150.00
Emails to and from client and Attorney Ditkowsky regarding the table
of torts. (3 emails)
4/9/2012    JMD    MARY G SYKES BLOG    0.75    $300.00/hr    225.00
Emails to and from Attorney Ditkowsky and client regarding table of
torts (4 emails)
4/10/2012    JMD    MARY G SYKES BLOG    2.50    $300.00/hr    750.00
Emails to and from client and Attorney Ditkowsky regarding updating
the blog and the Consumer Fraud Protection Bureau. (21 emails)

DENISON & ASSOCS, PC.
May 31, 2012

http://www.costofcorruption.info    Page    2

4/11/2012    JMD    MARY G SYKES BLOG    0.75    $300.00/hr    225.00
Emails to and from Attorney Ditkowsky regarding denying client’s
Motion to Dismiss. (6 emails)
4/12/2012    JMD    MARY G SYKES BLOG    1.00    $300.00/hr    300.00
Emails to and from Attorney Ditkowsky regarding the ARDC
Complaint. (6 emails)
4/13/2012    JMD    MARY G SYKES BLOG    1.50    $300.00/hr    450.00
Preparing 2 posts for blog.
JMD    MARY G SYKES BLOG    2.00    $300.00/hr    600.00
Emails to and from client and Attorney Ditkowsky regarding updating
the blog, the ARDC Complaint, and events that happened in court.
(13 emails)
4/14/2012    JMD    MARY G SYKES BLOG    2.50    $300.00/hr    750.00
Emails to and from client and Attorney Ditkowsky regarding updating
the blog and the ARDC Complaint. (12 emails)
4/15/2012    JMD    MARY G SYKES BLOG    1.50    $300.00/hr    450.00
Preparing 2 posts for blog.
JMD    MARY G SYKES BLOG    0.25    $300.00/hr    75.00
Emails to and from client and Attorney Ditkowsky regarding updating
the blog. (3 emails)
4/16/2012    JMD    MARY G SYKES BLOG    1.50    $300.00/hr    450.00
Preparing 2 blog posts and revising table of torts.
JMD    MARY G SYKES BLOG    2.00    $300.00/hr    600.00
Emails to and from Attorney Ditkowsky and client regarding updating
the blog and the response to the ARDC Complaint. (10 emails)
4/17/2012    JMD    MARY G SYKES BLOG    2.50    $300.00/hr    750.00
Reviewing Attorney Ditkowsky’s pleadings including the ARDC
complaint and Answer.
4/17/2012    JMD    MARY G SYKES BLOG    1.00    $300.00/hr    300.00
Emails to and from client and Attorney Ditkowsky regarding updating
the blog post. (6 emails)
4/18/2012    JMD    MARY G SYKES BLOG    2.00    $300.00/hr    600.00
Preparing 2 blog posts and reviewing pleadings.
JMD    MARY G SYKES BLOG    3.50    $300.00/hr    1,050.00
Emails to and from Attorney Ditkowsky and client regarding updating
the blog and an answer to the ARDC Complaint. (19 emails)
4/19/2012    JMD    MARY G SYKES BLOG    3.50    $300.00/hr    1,050.00
Emails to and from client and Attorney Ditkowsky regarding updating
the blog. (18 emails)
4/20/2012    JMD    MARY G SYKES BLOG    0.75    $300.00/hr    225.00
Emails to and from client and Attorney Ditkowsky regarding updating
the blog. (4 emails)
4/23/2012    JMD    MARY G SYKES BLOG    0.75    $300.00/hr    225.00
Reviewing emails from Attorney Ditkowsky for blog post.
JMD    MARY G SYKES BLOG    0.25    $300.00/hr    75.00
Emails to and from client and Attorney Ditkowsky regarding updating
the blog.
4/24/2012    JMD    MARY G SYKES BLOG    2.00    $300.00/hr    600.00
Preparing 2 blog posts and Legal research regarding Lawless
America.
JMD    MARY G SYKES BLOG    4.50    $300.00/hr    1,350.00
Emails to and from client and Attorney Ditkowsky regarding Lawless
America, updating the blog, and the ARDC Complaint. (25 emails)

DENISON & ASSOCS, PC.
May 31, 2012

http://www.costofcorruption.info    Page    3

4/25/2012 JMD    MARY G SYKES BLOG                                      2.50    $300.00/hr     750.00
Emails to and from client and Attorney Ditkowsky regarding
publishing a new blog post and filings against properties. (13 emails)
4/26/2012    JAD    MARY G SYKES BLOG    1.00    $25.00/hr    25.00
Obtaining imaged copies of relevant portion of the probate files from
the Cook County Court Probate Division.
JMD    MARY G SYKES BLOG    2.50    $300.00/hr    750.00
Emails to and from client and Attorney Ditkowsky regarding filing
against properties and updating the blog and telephone
conference with client regarding same. (11 emails)
4/28/2012    JMD    MARY G SYKES BLOG    4.50    $300.00/hr    1,350.00
Preparing blog posts and sending 2 faxes to Attorney Black at the
ARDC.
JMD    MARY G SYKES BLOG    6.25    $300.00/hr    1,875.00
Emails to and from client and Attorney Ditkowsky regarding
publishing the entire case record, updating the blog, and obtaining
the court transcripts (38 emails).
4/29/2012    JMD    MARY G SYKES BLOG    6.75    $300.00/hr    2,025.00
Emails to and from client and Attorney Ditkowsky regarding updating
the blog and obtaining the transcripts, and  (39 emails).
4/30/2012    JMD    MARY G SYKES BLOG    1.00    $300.00/hr    300.00
Emails to and from client and Attorney Ditkowsky regarding the
ARDC proceeding against Attorney Ditkowsky. (5 emails)

For professional services rendered    72.00    $23,725.00

Additional Charges :

4/26/2012    Photocopies from Court of Court files.    24.25

Total additional charges    $24.25

Interest on overdue balance    $1,998.33

Total amount of this bill    $25,747.58

Previous balance for maintaining blog and defending ARDC Complaints, running the blog, etc.   $28,750.00

Accounts receivable transactions

Balance due    $54,497.58

Fax to Mr. Kevin Connelly, Sheriff’s dept regarding seizure of attorney laptops for whistle blowing.

Posted on by
Reply

FAX TRANSMITTAL SHEET
To: Mr Kevin Connellly
Office of Sheriff
Circuit Court Cook County

Fax: 312-603-6183
From:                      Admitted Ill., N.  Carolina and Patent Bars
JoAnne M. Denison,     Pat. Atty.  Reg.  No.  34,150
DENISON & ASSOCS., PC    FAX 312-553-1307
1512 N Fremont St, #202    CELL PH 773-255-7608
CHICAGO, IL 60642    PHONE 312-553-1300
JoAnne@DenisonLaw.com or http://www.DenisonLaw.com
Federal Patents, Trademarks & Copyrights
Troy Sieburg, associate, of counsel
Marianne Buckley, associate of counsel
Important Notice
This facsimilie message contains attorney privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above.  If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone, collect, and return the original message to the above address.  You will be reimbursed.  Your cooperation is immensely appreciated.
For transmission problems, please call 312-553-1300
A confirmation copy       WILL   ✔   will NOT be sent.
Pages in fax, including this coversheet – ( see fax header  )
July 7, 2012

Re: Seizure of attorney laptops in Probate court
And case no 09 P 4585 estate of mary g sykes

Dear Mr Connelly;

I was referred to your offices by Chief Judge Timothy Evans due to the constant seizure and interference by courtroom personnel in court room 1804 (Probate division, where else?) Whenever I simply want to take notes for a client on my laptop.

I think everyone knows that the courtrooms are supposed to be public and the ability of the public to take notes and disseminate news is very important.  I am an attorney running a blog on http://www.marygsykes.com/ which appears to be a very corrupt case, with corruption reaching to the highest levels, including the ARDC.

But when I go to court room 1804, the guardians ad litem complain to the judge “I am blogging.” Despite my best efforts to properly train court room personnel on first amendment rights and the rights and duties of attorneys to help their clients and others, they continually deny myself and my law clerk use of a laptop.

You might say, why?  There are hundreds of attorneys running around the Cook County circuit court at any given time using laptops, iPad thingies, laptops, whatever.  No one bothers them.  I practice there and in no other court room am I bothered.  I have conducted several trials weeks long and no one said anything when I used my laptop.  Opposing counsels all used laptops too.

Keep on asking questions, tho.  It’s obvious in this case.  Half the file is missing.  The court in 09 P 4585 has been acting without subject matter jurisdiction now for about 3 years.  The court and the GAL’s are working without authority and are engaging in gross tortious actions.   Any day now this will blow and it may very well create a scandal more far reaching than Greylord (yes, I’m old enough to recall Greylord, are you?)

Therefore, I need a response from your offices that attorneys should be allowed to use their laptops to take notes, compare their file stamped pleadings with the record, order needed transcripts, etc.

I also think a 9 volume appeal record is also missing from the courtroom, but I will try to confirm that on Monday.

How is this all happening? And when attorneys are trying to investigate and report the very important news our Probate court is utterly corrupt, we are told “no laptops.”

So please provide me with a proper response or letter indicating I can use my laptop and so can my staff and other attorneys, otherwise, please let me know when you are available for a pre-filing telephone discovery deposition to attach to a CPA (the Illinois Citizens Participation Act)  complaint for filing over with your buddies at 219 S. Dearborn.

Thanks

Very Truly Yours,

DENISON & ASSOCS, PC

JoAnne Denison

JoAnne M. Denison

PS– please respond by email or fax.  I see that Judge Timothy Evans likes to use expensive $50 per ream colored engraved bond paper.  I don’t need or want that.  That’s ridiculous when the country is now in a depression.  Are you guys kidding?  BS is the same on any type of paper, and is probably best left to the cyber junk on the internet.  Email and  Efax is fine by me.

PPS–you think this case is not corrupt on many levels?  Go ask the official court reporters offices who have now provided me with 3 affidavits of “lost” or “untranscribable” court proceedings.  If you believe that one, I have some swamp land for you in Florida that can be easily drained and Disney will buy it.

So, just let me know if you are on the side of cleaning up the courts or if you are a SOP patronage worker that fears every day to be thrown under the bus for whistleblowing.  You get a choice today.  I think Judge Evans made his choice.  Too bad it’s now permanently on the internet tagged under “corruption”.

PPPS–copies of correspondence to Judge Evans are attached hereto.

Cc: Hon Pres. Judge Timothy Evans

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

tags: “timothy evans” “presiding judge cook county” “sheriff’s department cook county” “kevin connelly corruption”, “sheriff corruption” “failure to investigate corruption” “cook county corruption”, “seizure of laptops”, “whistleblowing attorneys”, “first amendment rights violated”, “public’s right to know denied”, “missing files cook county court”, “probate court corruption”, “judge jane louise stuart corruption.”

PPPPS– you should be able to google these tags in a day or two and see yourself in the search engines linked to corruption.  BUT the best part is most recent posts are listed first, so if you send out a mandate attys are allowed to use laptops to take notes in court and investigate corruption, you will be linked to new tags with your name and that you uphold constitutional rights, you assist attys in investigating corruption and you take the side of whistle blowers.  Whatever corrective tags you want, I will use.  Guaranteed.

Today’s post on the Hearing–But where is the Law and Where is the Science–Main questions:?

Aside

Dear Readers

While I am writing up now my thoughts and notes, main questions came in from the peanut gallery regarding proceedings in Probate Court that I believe get to the bottom of what is going on.

What I thought was most noteworthy, was 1) the judge admitted Sodini was not going to be used in her court (now, I believe I heard that, but it was fairly shocking news, so I might have misheard; 2) Gloria asked about how a psychiatrist, namely one Dr. Shaw, who never saw her mother in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, etc. is now predicting in Oct. of 2008 simply did not have the capabilities to make or understand a written contract.  He primarily did this assessment of something called a “mini mental” which Dr. Patel conducted maybe once or twice per year and was part of her medical records. Now I would call that being a psychic, because well, Mary wears hearing aids that are not particularly effective, but…. Doc Shaw knows better (quack quack). 3) the court also explained to Gloria who pounded Dr. Shaw with proper procedures published by the Alzheimer’s Assn and the Mayo Clinic how numerous competent tests must be conducted and analyzed, together with a contemporaneous finding of a neurological testing for cognitive abilities before a finding of dementia or Alzheimer’s can be made.  Oops, sorry, skipped that step.

The judge explained how the Probate Court declares people incompetent by the thousands each year and the only standard it uses is whether the person “can make (logical) decisions and be able to communicate those decisions effectively to others.”

That’s it.  No science, no Sodini, no due process.  Get a quack and loot an estate–legally.

Thanks for explaining that your honor.

But there are more comments that are worth publishing below.

So have a delicious read on.  I left the best comment for last.

JoAnne

From Ken Ditkowsky
Sent: Fri, Jul 6, 2012 8:32 pm
Subject: Re: WestlawNext – § 358. Generally
That is the conclusion I’ve come up with.     This is bigger than Greylord, bigger that Watergate, and worse than either one and a dozen scandals that you can pick at random.
Why is the media so frightened of it.   Even the Judge appears to be afraid of it.    This Gulag makes the soviet judicial system look much better than ours.   
Ken Ditkowsky
Ken, since you were concerned that no one knows what a “gulag” is, I’ll explain it here.  The Gulag was a system of work prisons throughout Russia which were masterminded by Stalin circa 1932 to 1970’s when the bestseller the Gulag Archipelago was published and Russia was officially embarrassed to stopping this human tragedy.  You had people declared incompetent or subversive and you sent them to these places where they froze, were starved, infected with various plagues, and then on the brink of death, some lucky ones were sent home.  Most were forgotten and buried in mass graves.  Millions of Russians were sent there over time, but records are sketchy.
Subject: Re: WestlawNext – § 358. Generally
Why is Mary Sykes not entitled to the protections of the statute?    Are there two sets of laws – one for those individuals who are targeted for deprivation of this civil and human rights by the politically elite and those who have no money?
Ken Ditkowsky

Subject: RE: WestlawNext – § 358. Generally

 Dear All,


Again very interesting.  I will order the transcripts on Monday and have to leave a deposit and so I must make arrangements to go downtown, et al.  That said, I have been barred from bringing in any evidence, witnesses, and *** even though the court transcripts of previous testimony I was allowed to bring in medical reports of Dr. Patel omitted by Peter Schmiedel and company.

I will be writing up my overview of today, but what is clear is,

(1) Dr. Shaw admitted he could not speak for Dr. Patel, Dr. Moctkya, or Dr. Rabin and the court agreed: however, he was allowed to give his medical opinion as to what he believed they meant when they wrote x, y and z.

(2)  Dr. Shaw admitted that some prescription drugs cause memory loss, disorientation, et al, and also admitted that none of the doctors he reviewed their reports listed the medications Mary G. Sykes was on the time she was evaluated by them:

(3) Dr. Shaw admitted that a diagnosis of dementia does not mean incompetency,

(4) Dr. Shaw claims that mild dementia and serious dementia are the same,

(5) and today Peter Schmiedel got Dr. Shaw to admit that all mother has is memory loss…

(6)  The Judge said that the US Supreme court decision based on an Illinois case that retroactive incompetency diagnoses are not allowed should not be considered, et al, 

(7)  The Judge said that Sodini does not apply to the Sykes case,

(8) The Judge claimed that there is no Illinois statue that states that a respondent to a petition for a protective order cannot be a guardian,

(9)  The Judge said that Toerpe can waive my mother’s rights to medical confidentially
and, but not limited to,

(10)  Dr. Shaw admitted that he may not have received all of the medical reports on mother but that his evaluation was determined on medical reports supplied by Carolyn Toerpe,

oops and,

(11) That he did evaluate mother recently, in April or May 2012 (which I’ve never seen his report)  but that he did not know if mother was on any medications, prescribed or otherwise…

The Judge said that I could not impeach him through my cross…

The Judge said that I could not give argument after Peter Schmiedel gave argument as to why the Court should sustain his objection(s)

And finally, Peter Schmiedel said that because he has a certificate of mailing that he knows I was served notice, et al.  

Peter Schmiedel then had in the order that I am to be called as a witness on the 16 August because I was on his service list.  The Judge then asked to show his service list which he did not have.  I have never been subpoenaed for service. I told the judge that I did supply them with a service list and Stuart told me that that was for ‘something else” and that the date my ‘witnesses were to testify” they were put in the hallway and I was handcuffed to a chair and… Schmiedel got that stricken..

Finally, I have court transcripts where the Judge says in 2011 that there is no proof my mother is incompetent only that she cannot make certain decision.  

JoAnne was targeted up front as to why she was in court and Judge Stuart said she doesn’t remember JoAnne ever being in court.  Accordingly, the deputy sheriff claims that the sheriff can determine whether or not a public can bring in their laptop.  Judge Stuart said that JoAnne could take notes on a yellow legal pad.  

At a certain point the deputy sheriff was going to take JoAnne’s computer, and the Judge waived her off.  JoAnne stayed in the courtroom with the computer on her lap  looking at the Judge.

I would like to know as Peter Schmiedel’s witness what I am testifying to … again as his witness….and what rights I have?  

Thanks
Gloria Jean Sykes 

Expert witnesses
Do not forget the fact that your mother passes a written driving test administered by the State of Illinois
Ken Ditkowsky
From Tim Lahrman
Subject: Re: WestlawNext – § 358. Generally
Date: Jul 6, 2012 7:43 PM
this is the present day practice of economic eugenics  …..   a shit law, very dangerous law —-  easily exploited law
that seemingly supports economic involuntary sterilization — and privateering with impunity.
I almost think I would prefer to face a bunch of Somali pirates than a court appointed guardian  ——  both are stealing you blind and if you shoot and kill the Somali pirate you are an American hero entitled to own and use your gun to defend yourself ——  but if you shoot the guardian the headline reads
“Crazed gunman with history of mental illness ……..”


Motion for Judgment on the pleadings–by Ken Ditkowsky

Posted on by
Reply

Dear Readers;

One of the most disturbing aspects of the Probate case and the ARDC complaint against Ken is the complete lack of procedure and the pressing need to railroad everything and bypass normal and typical procedures.  Neither Ken nor I have seen this is any case before, and he has practices for over 40 years and I have practiced for over 25.

I will update the lack of procedures in this case, but my “Table of Torts” surely should be made a law school/CLE classic.  Just how much procedure can a court/tribunal ignore while supposedly doing its job?

Read below for lack of procedure in the ARDC on KD’s Requests to Admit, and the fact the ARDC never responded to any of his Affirmative Defenses, which must be denied or they are admitted and a Judgment on the Pleadings is called for and deserved.

But what the heck is really going on. Why are there being made serious mistakes in litigation by the ARDC that are being ignored.  There are no cases that say an ARDC tribunal is exempt from the Rules of Court–which according to Bright v. Dicke are not “aspirational”, the Rules of Court are to have the “same force and effect as any Illinois Law.”

JoAnne

To: “jdit@aol.com” <jdit@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Suggested Re: draft of Motion for Judgment on the pleadings – unedited
Date: Jul 2, 2012 2:09 PM
The Motion for Judgment on the pleadings has the focus on the four corners of the pleadings.  I did something highly unusual I had both Gloria and Scott verify the answer and affirmative defenses with their own affidavits.  These affidavits recite facts that contradict the conclusions of the disciplinary complaint.   I did these intentionally as I and everyone else knows that the complaint that was filed was filed solely to intimidate me and shut me up.    the first attempt (the sanction motion) and the telephone call you heard on the speaker phone were not successful.   Indeed they made me deed deeper, and thus I discovered the ‘dirty little secret’ that gave rise to all of this nonsense.   (The plenary guardian obtained Mary’s double eagles!   They are worth over $3000 a coin and she has ___ coins)   The coins alone have a value of almost a million dollars.   This today is unreported ‘INCOME’
The fact that the ARDC cannot and will not produce evidence of compliance with the protections that I refer to as Sodini protections  is not a matter contained in the pleadings; however, Gloria’s affidavit verifying the answer and affirmative defense reports that she as a close relative was never served with the 14 notice.    This is not something that can be waived – this is a protection for Mary Sykes.   If Mary Sykes is a disabled person she is not in a position to waive the notice.
Thus, we are all bound by the ruling in Sodini that the Circuit Court had no jurisdiction.   As it had no jurisdiction what is happening is a simple case of felony theft (and Federal Tax evasion) aided and abetted by a government agency – i.e.  the ARDC and the law enforcement agencies that refuse to investigate and prosecute.
So far the panel has ignored the ‘cover up’ by the Administrator of the ARDC.  Rule 191 requires verifications to be done upon personal knowledge and the affiant must be able to testify as to the matters he/she is verifying.   The panel has ruled that the administrator can verify upon ‘information and belief’ and the fact that there is no information and belief is irrelevant.   (That is a summary of recent rulings by the panel!)
Judy – at some point in time, there is going to be an honest investigation and by the clear light of hindsight people are going to have to explain why there were not interested in protecting the First Amendment.   This is what happened in Greylord, in the Blago and Ryan cases, and in a bunch of other cases.   The inquiry is in the context of the’clear light of hindsight!’   Thus, inaction today may mean ulcers tomorrow.
Thus, even though in any Court in which a level playing field is displayed my Motion is a ‘laydown’ the motion has a 50/50 chance.   In any forum including those who are notorious for being star chamber proceedings the conduct of Lea Black would not be tolerated.   I expect that like the illegal communication with my client JoAnn Denison the ARDC will do nothing.   If it had been me or any other attorney you can bet your bottom dollar that they would have their panties in a bunch!
I have been in this situation before.   It is too bad, but we live in Cook County and the State of Illinois and is the price we pay.
Ken Ditkowsky
Sent: Mon, Jul 2, 2012 11:58 am
Subject: draft of Motion for Judgment on the pleadings – unedited

The Alvarez case that was decided on the same day as the Court rule Obamacare constitutional is precedent that even if I made was totally made up the Sykes case, the Tyler case, the Wyman case et al,  I had an absolute right to complain concerning such ‘august’ people as Stern, Farenga, et al.   Unfortunately evey word that I have spoken is truthful and the travesty that is the Mary Sykes case is real.

It is my position in addition to my prior positions that the ARDC lacks jurisdiction as the State of Illinois is not paying them to violate 735 ILCS 110 et seq.  of protect Stern, Farenga and the like from potential civil and/or criminal prosecutions.   Indeed, the ARDC did not cover itself with Glory in the Greylord scandal and in this equally important situation it is at best aiding and abetting  ****.     An investigation by Federal and State law enforcement is necessary —   Ms. Sykes recent run-in with Ms Black of the ARDC is bizzare.   Talk to any practicing attorney and they will inform you that it is rare that a duly licensed attorney not extend every courtesy to a witness, especially the day after a holiday such as the 4th of July.
The Sykes case is just full of *****.   Please inform me if the United States of America has recently had a election to replace President Obama and either the National Socialists or the Communists have won!    What has happened in the Sykes and related cases is not only wrong, but is so alien to American justice that something must have happened – I realize that democracy is not a spectator sport – but*****.

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS BASED UPON RECENT RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT OF UNITED STATES IN CASE OF UNITED STATES v  ALVAREZ

                Now comes the respondent, Kenneth Ditkowsky and states in support of his Motion:
Prefatory Statement
            The Supreme Court of the United States of America has been consistent in affirming the protections of the First Amendment and in obviating any device, gesture, or obfuscation that tends to restrict the First Amendment Rights of a citizen.    A lawyer admitted to practice in Illinois is a protected person (see In re: RMJ 102 S. Ct 929) entitled to the privileges and immunities of the First Amendment.   The First Amendment protections are illustrated by the decisions cited in the various Motions that the respondent has filed herein to dismiss these proceedings.   These Motions are incorporated by reference and made part hereof as if set forth in detail.
Implicit in the First Amendment cases is the principle that lawyers (as citizens) are given the greatest leeway to carry out their assignments.   The most recent case is United States v. Alvarez illustrates that lawyers and other citizens are not denied ‘core’ protections because of the content of their statements no matter where uttered and to whom stated.    Alvarez reaffirms the limitations that government (including the ARDC) may impose to limit the right of ‘the people’ to express their views is extremely limited.      Complaints of ‘Greylord’ or ‘Gulag’ type conduct by the Justice System are not amongst the categories of statements that can be censored or suppressed.   This instant case, while distinguished by the fact the every statement made by the respondent is true, is essentially on ‘all fours’ with Alvarez.
            Procedurally, the Administrator filed a disciplinary complaint herein accusing the respondent of being untruthful to ‘judicial officials, i.e. two Guardian ad litem, who act under color statute, knowing that 1) the sanction proceedings that they brought against the respondent were without jurisdiction; and 2) the court appointing them failed to comply with the protections of the Probate Statutes and thus is stripped of its jurisdiction.    See:  Matter of Sodini, 172 Ill. App. 3d 1055, 527 N.E.2d 530 (1988).
            The Respondent Answered the complaint filed here by filing an Answer and Affirmative Defenses.      The Administrator chose not to deny the affirmative matter, though he has had every opportunity to do so.    The affirmative defenses are now admitted – 735 ILCS 5/2 613.
Subsequently on June 28, 2012 the United States Supreme Court filed its opinion in United States v. Alvarez.  The case of United States v. Alvarez goes beyond the guiding principle of Ashcroft vs. American Civil Liberties Union 542 US 656, 660 that content based restrictions on speech are presumed invalid.    Indeed, the Supreme Court has applied the most exacting scrutiny in assessing content- based restrictions based on protected speech Turner Broadcasting System Inc. v. FCC 512 US 622, 642 and even in cases of defamation or fraud, has set restrictive and protective criterion so as to give the broadest freedom to persons such as the instant respondent to express his views, protest to this government and associate with his clients, friends, neighbors etc.   See New York Times v. Sullivan 376 US 254, 280.
Discussion
             As a starting point the affirmative defenses filed by the respondent are not contested and therefore no proof is required to their efficacy.     This panel denied the Administrator’s Motion to Strike the Answer and Affirmative Defenses and thus as no other documents were filed the pleading phase of these proceedings is over.      This Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is based upon the fact that a fair reading of the pleadings leaves no issue to try.       A fair reading of the Administrator’s complaint filed herein coupled with a fair reading of the Answer and un-denied Affirmative Defenses matter leaves no doubt that the Administrator’s Disciplinary Action was filed in derogation of the ‘core principles’ and policy of the State of Illinois recited in 735 ILCS 110/5.     It is respectfully suggested that United States v. Alvarez, while dealing with a criminal statute, obviates the disciplinary complaint that is filed herein as the complaint by its words and phrases refers only to protected “content” speech.     A lawyer complaining that certain persons appointed as guardian ad litem have not done their assigned tasks is not engaged in unethical conduct or criminal conduct. [1]   Lawyers have been castigated for not reporting the very type of conduct that respondent has complained.     The words and phrases of the First Amendment point out that complaints to law enforcement concerning the actions or non-actions of the Guardian ad Litem (or even the Administrator) are protected First Amendment Conduct even for a lawyer.
Most importantly, the respondent was not a party to the probate proceedings but was an ordinary  citizen (who happened to be a lawyer) who objected to the fact that the two guardian ad litem were not interested in the alleged disabled person, but were actively engaged in preventing their ‘ward’ from enjoying her rights, privileges and immunities of American citizenship.     In addition, the respondent objected to the fact that the Guardian ad items did not report matters adverse to the interests of the plenary guardian.      These objections including a specific complaint that the GALs did not report to the court that their ward had been admitted to the emergency room at Edwards Hospital having lost 10% of her body weight, had most of her estate (estimated at approximately a million dollars) not inventoried and was isolated from her younger daughter and her younger sibling.[2]   The right to protest this conduct on the part of the GALs is free speech.    So is an expression of outrage that protections imbedded in the Probate Act to protect the ‘ward’ were ignored by not only the two guardian ad litem but the Judges assigned to the Probate Court.
            This panel is invited to examine the docket and the record of the Circuit Court of Cook County in case In re: Estate of Sykes 09 P 4585.    If such an examination is done it will be ascertained that, as per the affidavit of Gloria Sykes which is part and parcel of the Answer filed, the Sodini protections were ignored.[3]   As the protections are jurisdictional it would appear that Mr. Stern, Ms. Farenga, and the Court lacked jurisdiction.    It is respectfully submitted that a lawyer has an ethical duty to report illegal conduct to the authorities.    Furthermore, the words and phrases of the First Amendment are clear in protecting such lawyers who are compliant from prosecution (of the complaining lawyer).  The complaint filed herein infringes upon the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article 1 of the Illinois Constitution of 1970.
            The litany of abuses by the complaining Guardians ad litem is extensive and unfortunately many of the acts either are criminal or border on the criminal.     These acts being extra-judicial based upon Sodini make all that aid and abet these acts accessories!      Some of the abuses are detailed in the sworn contradicted verifying affidavits of Scott Evans and Gloria Sykes attached to the answer and made part thereof.    It appears that these miscreant acts the lawyer complained thereof generating this disciplinary hearing are believed to continue to this day and are aided and abetted by these very proceedings.    For the record a report has been made by the respondent and others to the Department of Justice of the United States of America and the ARDC.    (Reference is made in the pleadings to the GAO report to Congress of September 2011 – this report details some of the United States of America’s own findings).[4]
            This panel as well all the institutions of government is bound by Article 1 of the Illinois Constitution and the First Amendment.     The complaint filed herein is clear that all the respondent is accused of is ‘content based’ communications.       The United States Supreme Court on June 28, 2012 determined in United States vs. Alvarez case 11-210 that restrictions on content based speech such as what occurred herein is barred as violating the First Amendment.    As the affirmative matter contained in the Answer are undented and the allegations of the complaint disclose that the instant disciplinary action is a garden variety second attempt to silence the dissent of an attorney who was not subject to the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court in the case of In re: Mary Sykes 09 P 4585 in derogation of the First Amendment (and Article One of the Illinois Constitution) the instant proceeding should be dismissed.
Summary
The failure to deny an allegation in a pleading is an admission.     The allegations made in the respondent’s affirmative defense are not denied by the Administrator and no reply has been filed.      Ergo, the respondent as part of his answer to the disciplinary complaint filed herein made substantial allegations as his affirmative defense to defeat this disciplinary complaint on the authority of the Alvarez case decided last week by the United States Supreme Court.     The Affirmative defense relying upon the United States Supreme Court’s rulings affirming the liberal and broad scope of the First Amendment averred that his conduct in protesting the miscreant conduct of the Mary Sykes plenary guardian and the two guardian ad litem appointed by the Circuit Court that is disclosed in the affidavits of Gloria Sykes and Scott Evans is protected by the First Amendment.   See In re: RMJ 102 S. Ct 929 735 ILCS 5/2 613.
The facts of the complaint, answer and affirmative defense demonstrate an undenied violation of 735 ILCS 110 et seq. and in particular 735 ILCS 110/5 in bringing this action.   It very clear that t735 ILCS 110, and the First Amendment decree that it is illegal for even the ARDC to attempt to deny the respondent and /or his clients their First Amendment Rights (these rights are also codified in Article 1 of the Illinois Constitution of 1970).    The administrator can cite no authority that allows a guardian ad litem to aid and abet a plenary guardian (or a Court) in denying a senior citizen of her liberty, her property, her civil rights and her human rights.  (See affidavits that are part of the answer of the respondent verified by Gloria Sykes and Scott Evans).     In re: RMJ 102 S. Ct 929  and in re: Himmel are clear that respondent has every right to make inquiry as to all facets of the guardianship proceeding involving Mary Sykes, and any attempt at denying him that right is a violation of 42 USCA 1983.
The Illinois Supreme Court has made it very clear in In re:  Himmel that it adheres to the principle of lawyers being free to expose corruption in the Court system, however, the administrator herein in this disciplinary complaint has taken a position that it is disingenuous and infirm as it violates not only the core principles of American jurisprudence, but the standard of Equal Protection of the Law manifest in Article One of the Illinois Constitution and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
            Wherefore the respondent moves that the instant proceeding be dismissed pursuant to the precedent of United States vs. Alvarez and the other First Amendment cases decided by the Supreme Court of Illinois intended to prevent government (including the ARDC) to interfere with Kenneth K. Ditkowsky’s  (and his clients) free speech and assembly.
Respectfully Submitted,
Kenneth Ditkowsky
Kenneth Ditkowsky
Pro se
5940 W. Touhy Ave
Niles, Illinois 60714
847 600 3421
[1] As the Administrator’s complaint appears to support the Greylord/Gulag conduction of the Sykes plenary guardian and the two GAL’s appointed in that vanilla estate the respondent not only personally verified the answer and affirmative defenses but requested and obtained the supporting verification of two witnesses who have personal knowledge that the conclusions recited in the Administrator’s complaint are inappropriate.   This panel has denied the Administrator’s motion to strike.     The Administrator does not deny the facts recited or the Affirmative Defenses.
[2] In paragraph 5 of her affidavit that is attached to the Answer filed by the Respondent to verify the same  Ms. Sykes states:
“it is my understanding that my sister (plenary guardian made an unauthorized visit to the safety Deposit Box at the Pullman Bank.   This safety deposit box was in the name of my mother and me.   The box was illegally and secretly drilled.    In addition to my property my Mother’s property was removed.   This property consisted of jewelry, cash, valuable papers, and Gold and Silver coins.    *** It is my estimate that today *** the value *** exceeds a million dollars***”
[3] Paragraph 9 of Ms. Sykies affidavit verifying respondent’s answer verifies that the Sodini protections necessary to vest the Probate Court with jurisdiction were not afforded Mary Sykes.    Thus, Mr. Stern and Ms. Farenga had no standing to call themselves GALs in the Sykes Estate.    In fact the Court had no jurisdiction to enter orders.   It therefore follows that the actions of the Administrator in bringing this instant complaint are ultra vires.    The ARDC has not been delegated authority to protect unlawful actions of Judges, Court appointed guardians, lawyers or similar persons.    As the Appellate Court of Illinois in Sodini has ruled that the protections granted to persons who are subject to guardianship applications are jurisdictional it follows that the ARDC is bound to follow the law and not directly or indirectly aid or abet the unlawful conduct of depriving senior citizens of their liberty, their property, and/or their civil and human rights.     It is respectfully submitted that this disciplinary complaint seeking to deny respondent of his right of protest and his clients of his investigation (and services) is beyond the jurisdiction of the Administrator.
[4] Ms. Sykes is a journalist and Mr. Evans a former Federal Analyst with impressive security clearance.

Are Lea Black and Cynthia Farenga engaging in witness tampering?

Posted on by
Reply

Dear Readers;

Apparently this is what the miscreants have in store for Gloria.  As you are aware, there is supposed to be set a hearing on the Partition motion for July 6, 2012 at 2 pm.  No one knows if Gloria is participating.  The entire Probate matter is without jurisdiction, so Gloria has no obligation.  I could not find a summons/affidavit in the Probate file when I looked earlier, and as you all know, having previously published a copy of the Probate file from Mar of 2011 to present, it appears no where in there either.

Ken brings up good points below.  So where is the summons and affidavit served upon Gloria for the partition?  I believe Chase got a general one and I have seen that.  How can they proceed without Gloria.  What judge would proceed without a duly filed and sworn to Summons and Affidavit.

Perhaps this explains the recent bizarre behavior of LB allegedly calling up Gloria and being nasty to her AND serving her with a summons for her deposition in the ARDC on July 5, 2012, when Gloria has other plans and will not be available.  When Gloria said “no thank you” to that date, LB apparently did not take that well and things got nasty from her.  Gloria complained to LB’s superiors in Springfield, and got an apology.  Gloria sent numerous other dates.

What did the LB/Farenga party plan?  A deposition and the next day the Motion on Partition?

Pretty sneaky.  No one know what Gloria is doing about July 6, 2012.  I have not seen any summons for any of the court (wired) connected doctors that keep on saying Mary is incompetent despite the videos, despite having passed her driver’s exam in Jan. of 2009. 

The miscreants want her declared incompetent back to August of 2008. But how can that be with her passing a written driver’s license exam?

This crazy plot continues.  No jurisdiction.  Doctors that are paid handsomely for about an hour of work ($950 to one doctor according to CT’s 2011 accounting).

Too bad there are now waaay tooo many people besides Gloria noticing and publishing all the dirty little tricks and secrets of this case.

JoAnne

 

 

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Jul 2, 2012 4:27 PM
To: JoAnne M Denison , NASGA , probate sharks
Cc: Tim Lahrman NASGA , states attorney , Cook County Sheriff , “Edward C. Carter” , “David (NBC Universal WRC) Silver” , “tips@tribune.com” , SUNTIMES , Joseph Hosey
Subject: escalation of intimidation on Gloria sykes in progress

This afternoon, right after being threatened with contempt of the Supreme Court of Illinois for going on vacation after being served with a subpoena for deposition on June 29th for July 5 (short notice), the three guardians got in the act!   Gloria received an e-mail from Cynthia Farenga informing her of a competency hearing on July 6.  To comply with Sodini the persons to be notified have to stated in the petition and each has to be notified.   The plenary guardian in her petition did neither.   This gross act of intimidation just makes my blood boil!   Gloria Sykes is a key witness in my disciplinary case and this attempt to intimidate her is clearly violative of my rights (as well as hers)   I would suggest to law enforcement that these actions taken together are as close as anyone will get to ‘witness tampering!’   Ms. Sykes is expected to testify that the conclusions of the ARDC in bringing the disciplinary action against me are false and not supported by the facts.    By intimidation of Ms. Sykes my meeting the spurious allegations put forth by the two guardian ad litem becomes more difficult, especially before a panel that has denied me interrogatories, limited my Request to Admit, and refused to enforce my Notice to produce documents.   Please note – I not complaining or suggesting that I will not have a level playing field.   The ‘truth’ is on my side, and unless somehow it is barred by intimidation of my witnesses etc I should win on a field that is at a 45 degree angle against me.      
 
That said, the witness that Ms Farenga intends to put forward is Dr. Shaw.  Dr Shaw has never examined Mary Sykes, but has (allegedly)  testified previously that it is his opinion that in 2008 Mary was incompetent.   As Dr. Shaw knows or should know that immediately prior to the filing of the petition for guardianship Mary passed a written examination administered by the Illinois Secretary of State in my opinion his testimony will or is perjury!    The tendering of Dr. Shaw to the Court in my opinion is subordination of perjury.   
 
Pursuant to Himmel, I have an obligation to report this attorney misconduct.   I will be doing so this afternoon.   My draft letter is as follows:
 
 Ms.  Lea Black
 
 
Dear Ms. Black,
 
I do not believe in coincidences and therefore after being informed of the verbal exchanges that you had with Ms. Sykes the receipt of the attached  e-mail is most disturbing.  
   
The failure of the plenary guardian to name and serve the close relatives of Mary Sykes is one of the prime protections that keeps an individual from being railroaded by Court order into a situation in which he/she is illegally deprived of his/her liberty and property.    The docket and the record in the Sykes case are clear that these statutory protections (which are jurisdictional) have not been complied with.    If the ‘ex-post facto’ testimony of Dr. Shaw is intended to now fill the gap and approximately three years late obtain nunc pro tunc jurisdiction the statutory protections are still not be complied with and more seriously it apparently has still not been disclosed to the Court that just prior to the filing of the Petition for guardianship being filed Mary Sykes passed a written examination administered by the Secretary of State.    It is therefore my opinion that upon learning of this maneuver I became vested with a Himmel obligation to respectfully suggest that subordination of perjury must be considered as Adam Stern, Peter Schmiedel and Cynthia Farenga have knowledge of the fact that a person with dementia does not usually pass written examinations administered by the Illinois Secretary of State.    We know what Dr. Stern’s conclusions are going to be! 
  
I also find the timing of Ms. Farenga’s e-mail to Ms. Sykes to be more than a little disturbing.    Apparently you had a conversation with Ms. Sykes about noon today, and shortly thereafter, Ms. Farenga is advising Ms. Sykes of a hearing on the 6th of July.    I would hate to have to tell you about the paranoia attack I would have if the alleged proceeding were scheduled for the 5th. 
 
      The plot thickens as Ms. Sykes indicated to mutual friends that she is hoping to meet with a publisher immediately after the 4th of July.    A number of attempts have been made to interfere with Ms. Sykes intellectual property rights.   She will address that situation at the time she finds convenient and appropriate.
 
As the ARDC apparently is disinterested in the actions of Ms. Farenga, Mr. Stern, or any other attorney engaged in the active ***** of Gloria Sykes and Mary Sykes I am copying this letter to the United States Attorney Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division.    This letter fulfills my Himmel requirement.    
 
I would like to urge the ARDC to examine fully, honestly and completely the Sykes case.    The embarrassment created by Greylord should be an incentive. 
   
Yours very truly,
 
 
As approximately a million dollars in collectibles has been removed from a safety deposit box at the Pullman Bank (now Chase) and not inventoried everyone who has objected to the ‘cover-up’ has been subjected to harassment of various degrees it seems to me that with substantial State and Federal Taxes due (Breach of Fiduciary relationship is a taxable event) law enforcement should be interested – at least to collect the taxes due.    
 
In any case – I did my duty and the ARDC has been notified.    The Department of Justice has also been notified.   It is ironic that on the 4th of July we have to be cynical as to the basic institutions of our government!   Shame on us!
Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com