Dear Readers;

Here is an article submitted by anonymous donor:

http://ppjg.me/2012/08/29/too-often-death-is-the-only-way-out-of-guardianship-gulag/

http://ppjg.me/2012/08/29/too-often-death-is-the-only-way-out-of-guardianship-gulag/

It explains the problems with our current system of Probate, that the Probate courts do not monitor the use of Seroquel, Halodel, Resperodel, and other dangerous drugs used to put perfectly healthy, happy seniors out so they cannot complain they are in a nursing home when they want to be in their own home.  It also explains how the Probate system is corrupt and forces seniors to sell their homes to pay massive attorney’s fees to strip them of their rights and dignity.  The judges ignore wards such as Mary who had advance directives and wanted to live in their own home until death.

Once stripped of their rights, it is easy to sell their assets, drug them, isolate them, dump them in dangerous nursing homes, provide generous payments to all the attorneys involved in the guardianship so they have little reason to complain–or investigate.  They know who greases their palms, and sometimes it ain’t pretty.

The systems are corrupt and must end.

JoAnne

Dear Readers;

As you might or might not know, in 2005 Carolyn took Mary to Atty.  Haggerty for a bit of “estate planing” that obviously benefitted Carolyn in the long run.

But in her haste for greed, Carolyn did not know and did not consider that the Trust was actually invalid due to the “Statute of Uses” which prohibits the trustor and trustee from being the same entity, thereby creating a false trust.  This is a concept that came from a law passed by Henry VIII in 1529 which broke up the concept of using trusts to avoid taxes by the landlowners.

Clever lords, they passed laws earlier saying that only a beneficial interest in land could be taxed and not the legal ownership, and then the lords created trusts where non-taxable entities held the beneficial ownership.

Well a few created trusts where both the trustor (the person granting the item or land to the trust) and the trustor (the person controlling the trust) were one and the same.  Henry VIII needed to fill his coffers so poof that was gone.

Today, the US courts, including Illinois still adhere to that precept:  where the trustor and trustee are one and the same, the trust is a fake and a fraud and can be voided.

Now Carolyn had her own sister evicted, a certain “Gale Gatekeeper” (she has asked me to and I have no problem with, using a pseudonym for her, and I believe this one fits), based upon the trust document, so the eviction proceeding, for that and other reasons (the trust said that Mary had to be found incompetent by her own personal physician–a certain Dr. Patel–which he refused to do) is completely wrongful and voidable.

see the below link.

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwaGZ1WDlmeC1XWnM

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwaGZ1WDlmeC1XWnM

for more information on the Statute of Uses, check out the detailed article on Wikipedia, the source for all things obscure but still in use today.
take care

joanne
PS–if you are having problems viewing any document on this website, go to google and download the “drive” software which will make viewing, printing and downloading a snap.  If you do not have a gmail account, you will have to sign up for one.  If you click on it and still have problems such as “no permission”, write me and I will change permissions to public.  Sometimes I do forget.

Dear Readers;

As you know, last Thursday, the Probate Court DENIED Gloria’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (Sodini) on the grounds it had been brought up numerous times before and denied.  PS argued the appeals court denied it–which is not true and I the order denying it was published on a post, but I will put it on the blog.

At this juncture, Gloria CAN appeal my Disqualification a couple of years ago.  These motions can be appealed at the time they happen, according to Ill. Sup. Ct. Rule 306 (7) or they can be filed when a motion which can dismiss all grounds or claims is decided.  So this gives Gloria another chance to file the appeal if she wants.

In any case, here it is.  If it doesn’t help Gloria, perhaps it can help someone else.  Just do a search and change the names.

AS ALWAYS, READ OUR DISCLAIMERS ON PLEADINGS PUBLISHED ON THIS BLOG.  IT DOES NOT MEAN THEY HAVE FILED, WILL BE FILED OR ARE LIKELY AT ALL TO BE FILED.

take care and have a great day.
JoAnne

IN THE APPELLATE COURT FOR THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
FIRST DISTRICT,
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, PROBATE DIVISION
In Re the Estate of
Mary G. Sykes,
An Alleged Disabled
A Petition under Sup. Ct. Rule 306(7) to
appeal Probate trial court case:
No.: 09 P 4585
ORAL HEAING REQUESTED
NOTICE OF FILING
To: See attached service list:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on________________ 2012, we filed the following
documents in the above entitled cause, a copy of which is attahced hereto:
PETITION FOR APPEAL UNDER SUP. CT. RULE 306 (7)
REGARDING DISQUALIFICATION OF COUNSEL
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
_______________________________
JoAnne M. Denison,
Attorneys for Petitioner, Denison &
Assocs, PC
Prepared By:
JoAnne M. Denison, Atty. No. 14,867
Denison & Associates, PC 1512 N
Fremont St, #202 Chicago, IL 60642
phone: 312-553-1300
fax: 312-553-1307
http://www.denisonlaw.com
IN THE APPELLATE COURT FOR THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
FIRST DISTRICT,
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, PROBATE DIVISION
In Re the Estate of
Mary G. Sykes,
A Disabled Adult
Appellant, JoAnne M. Denison,
Disqualified counsel for Gloria Sykes,
Daughter of Mary G. Sykes
Appeal from the trial court in the case of:
No.: 09 P 4585
ORAL HEAING REQUESTED
PETITION FOR APPEAL
UNDER SUP. CT. RULE 306 (7) REGARDING
DISQUALIFICATION OF COUNSEL
Now comes the Petitioner, JoAnne M. Denison, disqualified counsel for an
interested party, Gloria J. Sykes (“Gloria”), in the above captioned matter, wherein Ms.
Gloria Sykes, is the daughter of the above disabled adult and Ms. Denison herewith
Petitions this honorable appellate court to respectfully reverse the two trial court’s orders
dated 1) December 10, 2012 where the trial court judge ruled Ms. Denison could not file
an appearance on behalf of Gloria and 2) on August 16, 2012 this same trial court
(different judge) recently denied Ms. Sykes’ Motion to Dismss/Non suit on the grounds the
Trial Court lacked Jurisdiction (Soldini). The undersigned former counsel of record believes
that both the decisions were in error–that the trial court has acted without jurisdiction since
December 7th, 2012 when the Petitioner failed to serve 1) written notice; 2) to adult
siblings and children; 3) notifying them of the time, date and place of the hearing on the
Petition for Guardianship; 4) by mail or in person–all of which are strict jurisdictional
requirements under the seminal case of In re Soldini.
The trial court further rubber stamped the motions of the Guardian’s Ad Litem,
Attorney Stern and Attorney Farenga, when Ms. Denison was disqualified for only
notarizing one document for Mary G. Sykes (“Mary”)! She presented evidence to the trial
court she never represented Mary, she had sent Mary no bills, and had no time records of
representing her. Ms. Denison had, in the past only represented Gloria.
Simply notarizing a document is not, in and of itself, grounds to disqualify counsel.
Additional details for the grounds for this Petition are set forth below:
A. STATEMENT OF PERTINENT FACTS:
1. This appellate matter arises out of a Motion to Disqualify which was granted and
made final on December 10, 2009 against Attorney Denison and her firm, Denison
& Assocs, PC to appear in the above captioned proceeding in the Probate Court of
Cook County, First District. Exhibit A1, Order of December 7, 2009, attached
hereto. On December 10, 2009, this order was modified to add the words “final
and appealable.” Exhibit A2, hereto.
2. Ms. Gloria Sykes was a Counter Petitioner in the above captioned matter for
Guardianship of her mother, Mary G. Sykes. Exhibit B, Amended Cross Petition of
January 18, 2009, attached hereto.
3. On or about November 10, 2009, Ms. Gloria Sykes and Ms. Joanne Denison, a
licensed Illinois attorney, came to an agreement that Ms. Denison would represent
Ms. Gloria Sykes in the above matter because the matter had become hotly
contested and Ms. Gloria Sykes was experiencing difficulties with her then counsel
of record arguing and winning motions.
4. On or about November 12, 2009, Attorney Denison attempted to file her
appearance in the above captioned proceeding and Mr. Harvey Waller, Counsel for
the now Plenary Guardian, Carolyn Toerpe, elder daughter of Mary Sykes, together
with Guardian Ad Litems Attorneys Cynthia Farenga and Adam Stern, objected to
this appearance on the grounds that Attorney Denison had previously notarized a
document which Mary Sykes had signed.1 All of opposing counsel–Attorneys
Farenga, Stern and Waller claimed that Attorney Denison would need to be called
as a witness during a trial to determine apportionment of assets in prior filed
litigation between Gloria and Kemper Insurance which was settled in August 2008
and all the settlement documents were approved by the litigation judge at that time.
The transcript of November 12, 2009 is attached hereto as Exhibit C, see pages 4-
12.
5. The Order of November 12, 2009 sets a briefing schedule of five days to file
Motions to Oppose Counsel and five days for Denison & Associates to respond.
Exhibit D, attached hereto.
1While Attys Waller, Schmeidel (they represent or did represent the Guardian) told the
court the Agreement notarized was a private agreement between the parties and a section 1401
motion was not required to set aside the Apportionment Agreement, this was in fact not true, but
the Agreement was reviewed by a Law Division judge and entered as an Order. It is not true
that the Apportionment Agreement was merely a private agreement–it was a Court Order and in
order to change that court order, a section 1401 proceeding had to be filed by either the GAL’s
or the Guardian within two (2) years from the date of the order–an action none of the attorneys
have taken in time. The Order was notarized, reviewed by the Law Division Judge, and then
entered in August 2008. Now two (2) years have passed and it is too late to contest the
contents of that Court Order.
6. On November 17, 2009, Attorney Denison filed a Preliminary Memorandum,
attached hereto as Exhibit E, pointing out 1) she never represented Ms. Mary Sykes;
2) her law firm records show that she never represented her and provided copies of
time sheets for the month in question and computer records; 3) and an email
submitted to the court indicated that she never discussed apportionment with either
Mary or Gloria Sykes–she only discussed the amount of the settlement and the
attorneys fees with Gloria Sykes; 4) the notary clause only stated the signatory
appeared before the notary and was known to the notary and then signed the
document. The notary clause did not state whether the signatory was of sound
mind or competent, and no assessment was made at that time to any of those
issues. All of these facts indicate clearly that Attorney Denison would not need to
be called as a witness at trial. Attorney Denison voluntarily provided this informal
discovery to all opposing counsel well in advance of the hearing on the merits.
7. On November 19, 2009, Attorney Stern filed a Motion to Disqualify Attorney
Denison. Exhibit F, attached hereto. Attorney Denison submits that such a motion
was frivolous in nature and only calculated to prevent Gloria Sykes from using an
attorney she knew would be vigorous and vigilant in defending her and representing
her interests.
8. On December 7, 2009 date a hearing was set and the Motion to Disqualify was
argued. A transcript of the argument is attached hereto as Exhibit G. During this
argument, opposing counsel argued a series of “what if” scenarios and the circuit
court then granted opposing counsel’s Motion to Disqualify her. Exhibit G, pgs. 12-
15. The court found that it would need to hold an evidentiary hearing on the issue
and Attorney Denison asked for an evidentiary hearing to be held instanter. The
court indicated this would be possible at the next available hearing date.
Immediately subsequent to this hearing, Attorney Farenga, when drafting the order,
said that she wanted two (2) months to seek discovery of all the issues, then a status
date would need to be held, and only after that an evidentiary hearing could be
held–meaning Gloria would be denied counsel of her choice for months and
months–long after a plenary Guardian was appointed for Mary.
9. Such a request is further evidence that the Motion to Disqualify Counsel was
primarily a means to deny Gloria Sykes counsel of her choice who would defend her
case vigorously. While Attorney Denison first requested to file an Appearance on
November 12, 2009, no discovery was served by any opposing counsel, despite the
fact the hearing was held nearly one month later on December 7, 2009. On
December 10, 2009, Attorney Denison informed the court to what had happened
with GAL Farenga and requested that she wanted to appeal and to make on that
date, the decision of the court full and final and subject to appeal. Transcript of
December 10, 2009, Exhibit H, hereto.
10. On December 24, 2009, Attorney Denison submitted a Motion for Reconsideration
attached hereto as Exhibit I. That Motion was either not argued or only partially
argued and then the court ruled that the Motion could not be filed. Exhibit J,
Transcript of December 29, 2009 Hearing, attached hereto, pages 1-13.
A. CASE UPDATE OF FACTS
11. Two years have passed since Ms. Denison was initially refused representation of
Gloria. When Ms. Denison attempted to file a Petition for Appeal, Gloria
prevaricated on whether she wanted to appeal. The deadline passed and counsel
waited for a decision which never came. It became apparent that Attys Stern,
Farenga and Waller, by agreeing to file and prosecute a Motion to Disqualify Ms.
Denison, had seriously damaged that attorney client privilege, with the client
repeatedly claiming both publicly and in private that Ms. Denison had been
(rightrully) disqualified, not understanding what Ms. Denison and other attys were
telling her about the situation–name, it is an improper and frivilous disqualification
for merely notarizing a docment.
12. A major grounds for the disqualification, that Ms. Denison might be called as a
witness, has never happened. A hearing scheduled to invalidate the apportionment
agreement–the basis of the disqualification, began on July 13, 2012, was continued
to August 16, 2012 and Ms. Denison has not appeared on any of the witness lists.
13. However on August 16, 2012, Ms. Denison was finally able to convince Gloria to
file a Motion to Dismiss/Nonsuit based upon the Sodini case. After becoming
involved in the case and helping Gloria once again as much as Ms. Denison could,
Ms. Denison strongly encourage Gloria to file a Motion to Dismiss/NonSuit based
upon lack of Jurisdiction (Soldini). Another attorney, Mr. Ken Ditkowsky discovered
this case and further, that no written notice of the original hearing date of
December 7, 2009 had ever been served on the adult siblings and children of Mary.
Declarations signed by Gloria and Mary’s adult sister, Yolanda, are attached hereto.
This clearly violates the holding in In Re Sodini that service of these written notices
by the Petitioner are jurisdictional in character.
14. The order denying jurisdiction is further attached hereto as Exhibit A3. It should be
noted by this trial court that on the day this Order was entered, Gloria initialed and
approved it in one version. Later it is obvious that Atty Stern crossed out some
verbiage and changed it after approval. That altered order, which was not
approved by Gloria, is
WHEREFORE, Attorney Denison believes that there was absolutely no grounds for
her disqualification other than opposing counsel filing a frivolous motion and arguing it,
and she earnestly requests that this honorable court of appeals GRANT the instant Petition
to Appeal her December 7, 2009 Order disqualifying her on the grounds the trial court lost
all jurisdiction on that date–and jurisdiction is vitally important to a case it may be brought
up at any time. Ms. Denison desires a court order to represent any Sykes family member
without interference from the trial court. It was not known in December of 2009 that
proper Sodini notices had not been served upon the close relatives.
Respectfully, even if the undersigned attorney’s appeal or Petition is denied for any
reason, she is respectfully requesting that the ARDC be directed to investigate the entire
matter, including the actions of Attorneys Stern, Farenga, Schmeidel and Waller for an
appropriate resolution of the question, just how does a Probate trial court with not one, but
TWO Guardian’s ad Litem continue on a case clearly lacking jurisdiction for over 31
months!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
_______________________________
JoAnne M. Denison
Attorney for Petitioner, Gloria Sykes
Prepared By:
JoAnne M. Denison, Atty. No. 14,867
Denison & Associates, PC
1512 N Fremont St, #202
Chicago, IL 60642
phone: 312-553-1300
fax: 312-553-1307
http://www.denisonlaw.com
JoAnne@DenisonLaw.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that the foregoing Petition to Appeal of the Disqualification of
JoAnne M. Denison has been served by the method indicated below to the following
counsel that has filed an appearance in the above cause of action:
Mr. Peter Schmeidel
Fischel & Kahn
155 N. Wacker Drive
Suite 1950
Chicago, IL 60606 via email and USPS first class postage prepaid
Cynthia R. Farenga
1601 Sherman Ave., Suite 200
Evanston, IL 60201
Fax 847-866-8885 via email and USPS first class postage prepaid
Adam Stern
105 W. Adams St.
Chicago, IL 60603 via email and USPS first class postage prepaid
on this August 24, 2012
__________________________________
JoAnne M. Denison

For a summary of the case–

Dear Lucinda;

Today I received a very nice letter from you thanking me for all my efforts to help Mary (not).

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwc2RHNFhUSFV5YWs

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwc2RHNFhUSFV5YWs

I would love to help you with your endeavors to wipe your name and the Michigan Advocacy Project from the face of the earth, but I just don’t have the time, ability, interest or motivation. (just kidding).

I publish emails I receive from Ken, and if he makes some good points about Probate, I publish them, from whatever source, bearing in mind that that newsworthy content is the name of the game.

I absolutely have no idea what you are having a problem with.

For some reason, people think that if they put a disclaimer against “accidental or intentional disclosure of private information” that it creates a legal privilege.  It does not.  Only attorneys, clergy and your CPA in Illinois have that privilege and it can be waived by public disclosure.  Ken is not your attorney.  I am not your attorney.  Who ever passed the email without your permission is the person you need to stop emailing and you need to complain to her or him assuming they have signed a confidentiality agreement with you or hold a statutorily created privilege.  I don’t have that with you, nor does Ken.  If you make a disclosure to someone you do not have a confidentiality agreement with, they are free to pass it on to whomever they want.

Accordingly, I am not negligent to you.  I hold no duties with respect to you, negligence, malfeasance, misfeasance, or otherwise. What legal theory exactly ARE you using?  Right to privacy?  You disclosed the statement to someone you had no legal privilege with, nor did he or she sign a confidentiality agreement with them, so please explain exactly what legal theory you are asserting.

I have no need or desire to publish anything you wrote.  Accordingly, you have to point out specifically where on the blog you want your content removed and I will do it.

I am publishing your letter because you sent it to me and I assume you want it published.  You also did not include an email or fax, and well, I only communicate that way because stamps are expensive (just kidding).

You, by running a blog, are a “celebrity” in your field.  You have to accept the fact people will use your name, the things you say on and off your site and pass them on.

Try to be gracious about it instead.

thanks
JoAnne

PS–You don’t have to send me anything certified mail, because I always acknowledge correspondence and respond promptly, often within minutes or hours. That is the only point of certified mail.  Plus while 95% of the mail arrives at its destination in 5 days, the other 5% is delayed or permanently lost.  Email is a better option for you.
PPS–I have no idea why you sent me your letter.  You did not mention any particular blog post that offended you, so I don’t think there is anything to change or remove.
PPS–Thank you for helping people to understand that just because they put the phrase that the information contained therein MAY be considered confidential, it does NOT necessarily create a legally binding duty to keep the information confidential.  You have to have a confidentiality agreement which is signed by the party under the duty.  Otherwise it is only statutory.  That’s why lawyers, clergy and Illinois CPA’s put that phrase on their communications.  Other people copy it and think it does something, (I could name names, but I won’t), but it does not.  Thank you for busting another urban legend us IP lawyers have to deal with all the time that really should be on Snopes.com.  If you want, I can add this info to my website when I get a chance so you will understand how confidentiality, first amendment and news rights work.

PPPS-If you don’t like the blog, please don’t read it.  If the blog upsets you, please don’t read it.  If Ken is passing along your emails or publishing them, and you don’t like that, please don’t email him.  Simple solutions. Also, if you don’t want me publishing your stuff, just put on your emails, not for JoAnne to publish.  What do I care?  the only problem is, some of these threads get soooo long, I might not catch it, so you will have to politely email me and tell me the date and title of the post containing your content and I will summarize it instead–if it’s important, and I assure you that would be a remote rarity.  Again, what do I care?
PPPPS–if you don’t write me again, thank you very much.

Dear Readers;

While Gloria was kind enough to email me the attached orders today, and of course, she had more than a few choice words for all the shenanigans of the miscreants, she has not provided any commentary for publication–yet.

As you are aware, I was in court on that fateful day, August 16, 2012 when Gloria brought her Motion to Dismiss for lack of Jurisdiction (Sodin), and the miscreants, of course, came up with 3 big lies about it 1) numerous prior court orders existed denying Gloria’s Motion to Dismiss; 2) PS said the issue was taken up on appeal and it was argued and the appellate court affirmed the trial court–big lie no. 2, I published the order dismissing for formating non-compliance–not on the merits and the best one, 3) Gloria’s exhibits and testimony were barred.

Going back to last Thursday, I believe 3 orders were drafted up on those 3 issues 1) the Motion to Dismiss (and Gloria asked the judge to add in the grounds and she did–numerous Motion to Dismiss had been denied; 2) a motion to enter and continue Dr. Shaw’s testimony; and 3) I believe Amanda wanted the judge to issue another order firmly barring all of Gloria’s evidence and testimony.

Orders one and two are linked below:

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwQURkdWVvckQxY0U

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwQURkdWVvckQxY0U

Nothing like the time honored true fashion of if you don’t like what the order said when the parties agreed, just get the judge behind closed doors and get her to alter it.  And do it messily and have two “entered” stamps on it.

Even a grammar school child can forge a parental note with more skill and care than the minimal amount which was taken in this matter to cover up the tracks of their torts by these bumbling miscreants!

And look where they are throwing their excreta?  Right at Judge Connors, who, btw, was sitting in a deposition taken by the ARDC in KD’s complaint.  KD says he got Judge Connors to admit a number of missteps, most likely the deficient Petition for Guardianship not naming all the relatives, the defective service on Mary, etc.  Further he got her to admit she knew about the Sodini case!  Amazing.  Apparently where you can find plenty of manure just back shovel onto someone sitting on the hot seat already.  Nevermind the fact this case has been dancing around in 1804 for nearly 2 years with Judge Stuart and no investigation into jurisdiction then.

JoAnne

PS–Hey Adam, good call on the preamble about the denial of Gloria’s Motion to Dismiss Non suit where it says the issues was brought up on appeal of the Dec 2009 order and the appeal dismissed.  Good job there on the frugality with truth where you had the foresight to leave out the most important phrase “on the merits.”  Good thinking that no one will notice the operative fact that it was dismissed on other grounds, most notably formatting issues and 341 compliance.  Yep, if you’re going to be an expert at misleading the court, always be sure to only write the first half of a sentence and conveniently forget the rest of it.

Of course, when you get caught, the judge might really get ticked off at you and never trust you again, but………

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Aug 17, 2012 9:43 PM
To: JoAnne M Denison , scott evans , GLORIA SYKES
Subject: Re: Scott’s note – RE: 2009 P 4585 In Re The Estate of Mary G. Sykes – Aug. 16, 2012 court order

Dear Readers;

As you are aware, yesterday, when confronted with the awful truth that 1) There are no “numerous” court orders of denying jurisdiction based upon Sodini notices to close relatives of the guardianship hearing 14 days prior thereto; and 2) there is equally no prior court order barring Gloria from presenting witnesses and testimony at either of the Partition Action OR the Petition to Set Aside the Apportionment Agreement, GAL Adam Stern and Atty Peter Schmeidel were at a loss for words.

I challenged each of them on the way out of the courtroom, with a fresh stack of all court orders–direct from the clerk of court with a dated receipt Aug 16, 3:43 PM– from Jan 2011 to the present to find those court orders.  They chose not to go there.

Following up on Atty Schmeidel’s explanation for Big Lie No. 1 (there are numerous orders denying Gloria’s Motion for Lack of Sodini Jurisdiction and I argued that issue myself on appeal, your honor and the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court on the merits)–at this point Gloria squawks out the word “LIAR”) BUT in support of Gloria, I have to post:

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocweWo0bmRUWXl0aHM

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocweWo0bmRUWXl0aHM\

The order clearly states that the appeal was NOT dismissed on the merits, but due to section 341 compliance (margins and number of pages).  PS was lying to Judge Stuart.  Big lie No. 1.

Judge Stuart in court rightfully admonished GAL Adam Stern he was the “eyes and ears of the court” and she expected him to provide the court order barring Gloria’s witnesses and testimony by the next day, which of course, was today, August 17, 2012 (A day that will reside in infamy).

So Atty Adam Stern emails Gloria early this morning with the attached two orders dated Mar 30, 2012 AND NO WHERE IN THESE ORDERS DOES IT BAR GLORIA FROM PRESENTING ANY TESTIMONY OR EXHIBITS.

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwcTMwYnVLdWtHdWs

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwcTMwYnVLdWtHdWs

Gloria could not be in court on Mar 30, 2012 and she told PS that.  The judge told PS to put a copy of the Order in the mail to Gloria.  He says he did that.  Gloria says she never received it.  Neither PS nor AS can back that up with an email and attachment to her, so I rule that point is moot.  Both of them have enough money for fancy copiers and scanners to send a valid email.  PLUS, PS did NOT attach his certificate of service to Gloria indicating he mailed her a copy of the court order and his exhibit/witness list on 03/30/12.  I give that one a “dead in the water vote”, wouldn’t you?  Let’s see if he mocks up a lie and files it with the court.  I absolutely love after the fact, late mailed Certificates of Service.  They’re fun to rip apart.

And PS and AS email Gloria all the time when they have a scab to pick with her, but that’s beside the point.  Even CF emails me right away when I get her panties in a bunch over something fun I post about her.

Gloria figures since it doesn’t say that, she can’t do that.  But oh, my little buttercup, that is not how the court works.

First of all, if, as PS alleges, Gloria did not exchange a witness list and exhibit list, PS had to either 1) ask the court leave to file a Motion to Bar her Exhibits and Witnesses and give Gloria time to respond to that motion OR 2) he would have to have a prior court order stating “If either party fails to provide a witness and exhibit list to the other party, the party failing to provide the information will be barred by court order to put on any exhibits and witnesses.”

Local Rule 2.1 provides that all motions must be in writing, properly noticed and served upon opposing counsel.  PS got Gloria’s subpoenas by email.  He received his constructive notice of her witnesses.  But he failed to inform the court of that, instead he lied.

KD will agree with this assessment.

PS has no such court order.  And Gloria says she has the emails to PS in which she attached copies of subpoenas for the witnesses she intended to present at the hearing.  Realistically, if she did email PS a copy of her subpoenas by March 30, 2012, then he WAS put on reasonable notice as to her witnesses and exhibits and they should NOT be barred at all.  Further, if he has no timely Certificate of Service for the Mar 30, 2012 order, it’s a total do over.  He knows that.  AS knows that.

Okay, now what do the miscreants do at this point?  Well, they could buffalo Gloria into thinking that she didn’t do what PS did with a clear list filed with the court, yeah, that might work and she had to do it and since it doesn’t say in a court order she CAN put on witnesses, like PS got, then maybe she can’t.  Oh, I’m not an atty and I don’t know, she might think that.  But aw, shucks that pesky KD and JD will tell her nope, that’s not required.  What is wrong with those two–speaking the truth.  They’re not getting paid, why are they soooo mean to us?  We’re just trying to make a few (illegal) bucks!  Darn it all.

I know, we’ll just lie about it. And we’ll lie about it over and over until we convince ourselves and the court.

See the following court order entered in July, 2012 where PS replicates the lie like a bad clone in an Austin Powers movie–

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwS3hSM2g0REVESnM

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwS3hSM2g0REVESnM

see item no. 4 “As Gloria Sykes has been barred from presenting evidence, the parties intend to hold arguments at the end of the hearing.”  (And just when did THAT happen, prey tell?)

Interestingly enough, this order was drafted by GAL Adam Stern who is obviously the obedient b***h boy of PS!  How interesting.  AS and PS know perfectly well on July 6, 2012 that no such order was granted and no appropriate motion filed.  How convenient.  But AS now knows the court is acting without jurisdiction, so he’ll play along as the obedient puppy he is, since both the puppies are peeing on the judge’s carpet and she’s ready to give it a whiz too!

And if you’re all waiting for the piece de resistance today or the highlight, when Gloria or Scott went to court first thing to pick up the 3 orders I saw drafted from about 4:15 pm yesterday, no surprise, but Judge Stuart was off work for the day and her clerk was assigned to another courtroom and no one knew anything about getting orders from yesterday.

TOLD YOU.  And we’re going to try to order the last two transcripts too, but Gloria says she never got a quote for it.  Annie says she never did either.

Another TOLD YOU ALL.  And today’s transcript will go the same path.

Flush that toilet!  It’s right down the hall.

PS–one of the fun things AS did (because he can’t find the order he said existed barring Gloria’s witnesses and testimony), you will note he sends her a hard to read scan.  Oldest trick in the book.  If you can’t read it, here is what it says:

This matter coming to be heard on presentation of (sic) Amended Second Current Account and Disclosure of witnesses and documents and Caroly Teorpe appearing through counsel Fieschel and Kahn, Ltd. and also present GAL Cynthia Farenga also being present and Gloria Sykes having informed the court by fax that she was not appearing, it is hereby ordered that

1) guardian to mail accounting and report to Gloria Sykes this Mar 30, 2012 to last known address;

2) Gloria Sykes has until April 20, 2012 to file and serve any objections to accounting and report;

3) Guardian has to April 27, 2012 to respond to objections and

4) Gloria Sykes has until May 7, 2012 to Reply; and 5) case set for status on objections and Partition report on May 11, 2012 at 10:00 AM
End of Order;

Second Sheet (not numbered 1 of 2 as it should have been)

This matter coming to be heard on disclosure of witnesses and documents in advance of the April 13, 2012 hearing on the apportionment agreement and the court having previously set Mar 30, 2012 as a date for presentation in open court of the witnesses and documents and Carolyn Toerpe through counsel having complied with the order by disclosing witnesses and documents and Gloria Sykes having failed to appear and having failed to comply with the Feb 22, 2012 order directing disclosure of witnesses to be made on March 30 2012 in open court:  It is hereby ordered that

1) April 13, 2012 hearing will proceed at 2:00 pm with witnesses disclosed and documents disclosed by Guardian Carolyn Toerpe.

2) counsel for Guardian shall mail disclosures to Gloria Sykes to her last known address; and

3) subpoena on Kevin Salam is entered and continued to 4/13/12 at 2:00 pm;

4) hearing to proceed on 4/13/12 at 2:00 pm.

End of Order
So where does it say Gloria’s evidence has been barred?  her witnesses barred?

It really looks more like they will deal with that later–and not by barring her evidence, but giving her a chance to put her stuff on after Carolyn’s and more time to disclose.  I think they screwed up in writing up the order, but that’s their problem and not Gloria’s.  Further, both PS and CF lied to the court by not saying Gloria emailed them subpoenas.  It’s really bad when CF emailed Gloria back with an “I’m going to have better witness subpoenas than you, dummy.”

The order from Feb 22, 2013 reads, in it’s pertinent part

“3. The parties shall exchange a written list of the names of the witnesses and copies of any documents to be relied on and/or produced by the parties and their witnesses in open Court by March 30, 2012 at 10:00 a.m.”
Gloria says she emailed copies of the subpoenas to PS and CF, and it seems that should be sufficient.  She has dated email copies.  It appears that if PS and CF did not disclose this to the court in an honest and open fashion, as he should have, the order does not bar her from evidence or witnesses, it does not say the penalty is to bar witnesses (and CF again drafted a typed up order on this, NOT Gloria), then it seems PS should have properly asked for leave to file a Motion to Bar and waited for Gloria’s response which would have been “I already emailed my stuff to you dummy.”

I guess she should have added to her email “And when you go to court on March 30, 2012 don’t lie about it to the judge.”

I presume that PS and CF are attys you just have to tell them not to lie, otherwise they assume the court and any opponent* are fair game.

And the worst part about this is, Gloria says when she emailed a copy of all her subpoenas and witnesses to PS and CF, CF sent a reply email that she had subpoenaed a surprise witness on Gloria–Gloria’s financial advisor.  So Gloria knew that CF got the subpoenas and CF, being supposedly impartial, should have told the judge that and shown the court the subpoenas she received.  PS too, but you know how that goes…

Now for a joke for PS–

On the stand, the tough prosecutor was relentlessly grilling a witness about finding the loot.

The prosecutor asked, “so what did you do after finding the loot in the trunk of your car?”

Answer:  “I did exactly what any honest, law abiding citizen would do.”

Prosector, “So what was that exactly?”

Answer:  “I didn’t think you would know.  I’m not surprised.”

* note Gloria is not supposed to be CF’s opponent.  CF is supposed to be the “eyes and ears of the court” and is supposed to be fair and impartial.  Fat chance (pun intended).

KD is an honest attorney who knows of the Sykes estate and that it contained $1 million in gold coins, according to his business records!

Attorney Cynthia Farenga, on the otherhand, is an attorney that continues to prosecute the 09 P 4585 probate case against Mary Sykes, where there has been a complete lack of Sodini jurisdiction for THREE YEARS!  In a case clearly lacking jurisdiction, she has participated directly in an ultra vires, evil plan to terrorize Gloria and render her penniless and homeless–all illegally.  She gets the judges to rubber stamp her evil plans.  She goes into the judge’s private areas on a regular basis, presumably to plot and plan.

Read on to Ken’s response:

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com
GOOD JOB!  and Ken, I am behind you 100%.  I am proud to publish your emails calling for an investigation.  And if you chide or rib the miscreants about wearing orange jumpsuits, that IS your constitutional right.
I hope Gloria files something good in the probate court for tomorrow so this all gets kicked.  I have given her numerous suggestions.  She has affidavits, she has CT’s defective petition for guardianship.

I will be there, rooting for her and seeing if I can use my laptop, again!

Dear Readers;

I just feel soooo terrible because while I was wondering why Cynthia Farenga and Adam Stern and Peter Schmeidel haven’t filed the “Motion to Dismiss/NonSuit for Lack of Jurisdiction for Failure to Serve Notice (Sodini)”, I just realized I have not posted the CT’s defective Petition for Guardianship in which she states that Gloria is her only “close adult relative” despite the fact that Mary has two adult elderly sisters!
If you have not read the Sodini case, please google it and read it now.  It is a popular case.  I would post it, but I’m not sure about the copyright issues.

Here is a link to find a case

http://il.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19880726_0001145.IL.htm/qx

http://il.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19880726_0001145.IL.htm/qx

You will note that this case is very similar to the present case where Mary’s two adult sisters were never served notice of the hearing.  Bummer.  The Illinois Supreme Court has ruled that it is a jurisdictional defect necessitating a dismissal of the entire proceeding.

So take a look at Carolyn’s Defective Petition here:

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwdWhYX2V2WHBCWGM

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwdWhYX2V2WHBCWGM

And if you see Cynthia Farenga, Adam Stern or Peter Schmeidel, you might want to ask them why they haven’t filed a Motion to Non Suit or Dismiss because none of Gloria or the two sisters received any 14 day advance notice sent by Petitioner of the time, date and place of hearing for appointment of CT as plenary guardian.

take care

JoAnne

One of the things that will happen on Thursday (assuming that neither Gloria nor CF get their act together and file, notice and serve an appropriate Motion to Dismiss/Nonsuit for lack of Jurisdiction (Sodini)–which I highly doubt at this point.)  Gloria has informed me she will NOT take any actions any licensed attorney suggests or helps her with, she prefers to run trial strategy in the time, manner and rhyme or reason she develops, and CF, well, I have no idea what her excuse is.  I guess she is just hoping everything goes away and no one ever notices the mess because, well, Gloria likes the school of hard knocks and the rest of the family won’t or can’t stand up to CF and CT.

And poor Mary suffers, but that’s beside the point.

In any case, since Gloria would prefer to waste 2 to 3 hours asking questions of Dr. Shaw, I think these would be the questions I want to know answers to:

Dr. Shaw testified to a “mini mental” given in years passed to Mary, going back to 2007 and 2008.

1) can you explain what a mini mental is?

2) how and when was it designed and what was it to be used for?

2) how is it used today?

3) who uses these?

4) are they reliable?

4.5) how long do they take?  (10 min) how many questions (30)

5) how much reliability do you get in 10 min. and 30 quick questions  to assess cognitive impairment?

6) what studies have been done on 10 min. and 30 quick questions to indicate reliability?

7) are there different forms of the test (yes, there are, acording to Wikipedia, there are copyright issues–what else–with the test, and so unless you get and pay for the original PAR version, there are a lot of copycats out there.)

8) show him the wikipedia article and ask him if he agrees or disagrees with it.

9) ask that it be entered into evidence based upon new and unknown testimony. (Probably won’t get this, but it will be fun to watch them all squirm).

10) ask him if it’s true that the article says it may not be very effective on the deaf and blind

11) ask him if in the notes mary’s hearing and vision was checked first.

12) it’s easier to spell world backwards if you have pen and paper, was she provided with those?

13) isn’t it true that some people just can’t do simple  arithmetic or math no matter what test they are given?

14) isn’t it true that some people don’t read the papers or calendar and don’t care what time or day it is?

15) isn’t it true that 100 years ago most people did not read and did not know what time or day it is?

Show him the book “A world lit only by fire” and highlight the paragraphs that indicate how 100 to 200 years ago no one read, no one knew the date or time and no one cared.

16) Ask him if Dr. Patel checked mary’s blood pressure before each mini mental.  If he checked blood sugar, did a cbc or blood panel first, etc. (I think she asked these already).

17) Ask him if he knew that Mary was writing checks, doing yard work and why didn’t he ask you those questiosn?

18) Ask him if he read the blog and if he saw that posted there?

19) ask him if he saw the videos of Mary speaking her mind on Vimeo.
20) Ask him if he knew that she was told that Mary getting new hearing aides isn’t enough for her to hear properly.  She needed to go through hearing school to learn how to hear again

21) Ask him to read the part in the article on Wikipedia that the test may not be recommended as appropriate for someone that is deaf or hard of hearing.

I think that’s all the questions that come to my mind for the time present.

And what does this really mean to all of you, my dear readers?  Perhaps you should just REFUSE to take mini mentals when you get older.  They can be used as sua sponte binding proof in our august Cook County Court to strip you of your rights, let an abusive guardian take control over you and then invalidate contracts going back years.

Now of course Peter Schmeidel lied to the court and told the court that the Apportionment agreement was not a court order, but it was.  It was part of the settlement agreement and entered and approved by the court at the termination of the Lumberman’s case.

I have no idea how PS gets away with these blatant lies.  CF and AS back them up.  CT stands around like an empty headed goose and pretends she has no idea what anyone is talking about.

Blatant, evil money grab is all this is.

So my advice right now is, if you doctor is doing mini mentals, stop those right now.  They can be used against you later.  Get to your doctor today and demand that they all be destroyed.

JoAnne

PS–If you are searching for a way to prevent Alzheimer’s, cancer and dementia, be sure to take your B vitamins, C and D3.  If you haven’t had your D3 tested do it today and get it to optimal levels.  Get your supplements from Whole Foods or another quality health food store.  Be forewarned that what your doctor prescribes you might be non-bioavailable and slightly toxic and may do you more harm than good.  It is okay apparently to take synthetic ascorbic acid or ascorbate (vitamin C), it works just as well.  BUT use a lyposomal or LypoSpheric version, available on Amazon and Ebay.  Also add in a good probiotic.

I just was told by a woman the other day that her mother started losing it (getting confused, getting lost, etc.) and her doctor gave her vitamin B and C shots, got her D3 tested and gave her a good supplement (not D2–that is synthetic and slightly toxic), put her on probiotics and her mother actually “came back” in about a week.  Neurologists (MD’s) are currently curing autism and other brain disorders using similar methods.  So don’t think this has to happen to you.  It doesn’t.  Just think vitamins B, C, D3 and probiotics and make sure these items are bioavailable and natural.

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Date: Aug 13, 2012 11:58 AM

As you are aware the panel has refused to allow me more than 30 request to admit,.     Therefore, I have to use another tact.     Rule 201 (Evidence) deals with Judicial notice.      l can ask for judicial notice at any time.

I subpeonaed the Clerk of the Court and asked her to bring the files to the hearing.

The following is my draft of the Demand that the panel take judicial notice of

Request for Judicial notice to be taken as to facts that are confirmed by the Records of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois
Now comes the respondent herein and states that pursuant to Rule 201 this panel is requested to take Judicial notice[1] of the following facts and documents.    These facts and documents  are capable of accurate and ready determination by sources whose accuracy cannot be reasonably questioned:
A.      Court file:    That prior to the Petition filed by Carolyn Troepe to be appointed Mary Sykes plenary guardian Mary Sykes filed a Petition for a Protective Order against Carolyn Troepe  09 OP 2886  (Filed Jun 9, 2009)     exhibit B
B.      Court File:    09 P 4585.    That the Court  file in the said In re:  Mary Sykes   09 P 45 85  connotes the following facts:
Sodini Requirements
a.       That Carolyn Troepe filed a petition in the Circuit Court to have herself appointed as the plenary guardian of Mary Sykes
b.      That more than one of the close relatives of Mary Sykes are not mentioned in the aforesaid petition
c.       That there is no certificate of mailing or evidence of service of the petition filed by Carolyn Trope that commenced the aforesaid proceeding or any notice of any hearing of proceeding was ever served upon the close relatives of Mary Sykes
d.      That there is no docket entry that any hearing was had to determine if Mary Sykes was competent or incompetent.
e.      That there is no record that all the Close relatives of Mary Sykes were served with a prior 14 day notice that a hearing was to be had to appoint a plenary guardian and/or determine the competency of Mary Sykes.
f.         That there are no documents in the file that in words and phrases indicate any waiver of notice by any of the close relatives of Mary Sykes.
g.       That in particular there is no record of a written 14 day notice being served on either Gloria Sykes or Yolanda Bakkan  ( the younger daughter and the younger sibling of Mary Sykes) prior to the appointment of Carolyn Troepe as plenary guardian.
h.      That no hearing was held or  had in which testimony was taken in open court on the subject of Mary Sykes’ competency
i.          That the case of In re: Sodini 172 Ill App3d 1055 ruled that without the service of the 14 day notice on the close relatives of the alleged incompetent the Court lacked jurisdiction.
j.        That in Re: Sodini has never been over-ruled.
k.       That the Circuit Court of Cook County lacks jurisdiction to appoint a plenary guardian in the Sykes case.
l.          That the proceedings that have been promulgated in the Sykes case have been going on for over three years
m.     Those proceedings commence in a Court without jurisdiction are void.
Kenneth Ditkowsky
n.      That there is no record of Kenneth Ditkowsky being even collaterally involved in the case of In re: Mary Sykes 009 P 4585 prior to a Petition for Sanctions (against Kenneth Ditkowsky) being filed by Guardian ad Litem Adam Stern.
o.      That there are no documents in the Court file that indicate a waiver of rights by Kenneth Ditkowsky.
p.      That the Petition for Sanctions was commenced against Kenneth Ditkowsky by Adam Stern pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 137.l
q.      The Adam Stern was joined in the Petition for Sanctions by Guardian ad Litem Cynthia Farenga, and Attorney Peter Schmiedel (representing Carolyn Trope)
r.        That the action for Sanctions was commenced against Kenneth Ditkowsky without jurisdiction of the Circuit Court of Cook County.
s.       That the presiding Judge Connors granted the sanction motion even though the Circuit court  lacked jurisdiction to do sol.
t.         That a Circuit Court Judge entered a sanction award even though the Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction.
u.       That the sanction award was reversed by the Appellate Court ruling that the Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction.
v.        That Lawyers and Judges are presumed to know the Law.
w.      That Judges are required by law to ascertain if they have jurisdiction.
Gloria Sykes
x.       That for the Circuit Court of Cook County to obtain jurisdiction over Gloria Sykes, service of process must be served upon her.
y.       That no service of process was served on Gloria Sykes
z.        That there are no documents in the file that indicate that there was any waiver of rights by Gloria Sykes.
aa.    That there is no documents in the file that prior to a  Temporary Restraining Order being entered in this probate matter ( In re:  Mary Sykes)  was a verified petition filed that states specific and concise grounds upon a temporary restraining order can be supported concerning Gloria Sykes
bb.  That there a no documents in the Circuit Court file that indicate that any adversary or evidentiary hearing was held in which testimony was taken that would support the issuance of a temporary restraining order.
cc.    That no final order granting an injunction against Gloria Sykes.
dd.  That there was no bond posted in reference to any temporary restraining order (or other restraining order) concerning Gloria Sykes.
ee.   That there are orders in the file in which the Court ordered Gloria Sykes’ property to be interfered with.
ff.      That the Court record reflects no protections afforded to Gloria Sykes in the event that the Court orders were inappropriately entered.
gg.   That the probate Court (Judge Stuart presiding) entered an order directing an Indiana financial institution to freeze Gloria Sykes assets in Indiana.
hh.   That the Circuit Court of Cook County does not have jurisdiction to freeze assets outside of the border of Illinois.
Mary Sykes
ii.        That Mary Sykes’ treating physician was Dr. Patel
jj.       That Dr. Patel refused to sign a CCP 211.
kk.      That from the date of the filing of the petition herein by Carolyn Troepe to the Date of Bench service on Mary Sykes, Mary Sykes as a resident of DuPage County, Illinois.
ll.         That from the date of the filing of the petition by Carolyn Troepe the Summon in the said case of In re:  Mary Sykes directed the Sheriff to serve Mary Sykes at 6014 Avondale, Chicago, Illinois.
mm.           That there is no CCP 211 in the Circuit Court File signed by Dr. Patel.
nn.     That on August 31, 2009  Judge Connors was informed by Carolyn Troepe’s attorney that Dr. Patel would not sign a CCP 211.
oo.    That on August 31, 2009  The Circuit Court was required to hold a hearing and determine by that hearing that Mary Sykes was incompetent by ‘clear and convincing evidence.’
pp.    That on August 31, 2009 Judges of the Circuit Court of Cook County were not allowed to give advice to litigants (or their attorneys) and required to remain neutral.
qq.   That on August 31, 2009 the transcript of proceeds reveals that Judge Connors made a statement in words and phrases that advised or suggested that Ms Troepe obtain a doctor who would sign a CCP 211.   (The Applicable portion of the transcript is attached hereto and made part hereof as if set forth in detail  as exhibit A).
C.          Report to Chairman, Special  Committee on Aging, U.S. Senate   (United States Government Committee on Aging, US. Senate  (September 2010)      Attached as exhibit C
D.      United States Constitution and in particular the First Amendment.
E.        United States Supreme Court cases cited in the various pleadings and motions of the respondent
F.        42 USCA 1983
G.      In re:  Sodini 172 Ill App3d 1055  exhibit E
H.        755 ILCS 5/11a -10   Exhibit D
I.        735 ILCS 110

The said material is part of Official Records of the State of Illinois and the United States of America.
Respectfully Submitted,

Kenneth Ditkowsky

[1] Circuit Court Clerk, Ms Dorothy Brown has been subpoenaed  – a copy of the subpoena is attached hereto and made part hereof.

Ken Ditkowsky
http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Aug 13, 2012 5:55 AM

Subject: Fw: Jurisdiction to isolate Son of Greylord

Thought that the Tribune article might be interesting –  After you read it – ask yourself the question – why was situation not addressed when something could hve been done for the senior citizens:

Home>Featured Articles>Kevin Roberson
Aurora man gets 3 years in prison for neglecting mother
August 09, 2012|By Clifford Ward | Tribune reporter

34

(Tribune illustration)
One of three Aurora siblings who admitted to criminally neglecting their elderly mother was sentenced to three years in prison Thursday by a Kane County judge who called the woman’s deteriorated condition “horrific and disturbing.”
“Kevin Roberson was capable of caring for his mother. He just chose not to,” Judge Clint Hull said Thursday.
Ads by Google

Ken Ditkowsky
http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/

Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 16:35:30 -0700
From: kenditkowsky@yahoo.com
Subject: Re:

IN Illinois every judge has the jurisdiction to hear any type of case, thus, in a particularly horrible situation they do have the jurisdiction; however, when the visitation is used for the wrongful purpose of isolation of the victim – it is or should be a no no

Ken Ditkowsky
http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/

Rudy B. noted it is common practice for Courts and GAL’s to isolate wards–which he thinks they have no jurisdiction to do so, despite caselaw to the contrary.

My advice, to make sure you loved ones aren’t some day isolated from you is to SEE A LAWYER and give that lawyer clear directions that you do not want your children, grandchildren and certain people from being isolated from you.  You can put a clause in an advanced directive that any guardian who does so will be automatically disinherited!  Do it.  Keep your funds in a trust with an accounting to the court and a trustor that is an honest person.

—–Original Message—–
From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Aug 10, 2012 6:39 PM
To: Tom
Subject: Re: GHG Responsive Brief

http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/

Dear readers;

This is indeed the strangest email yet I have received from CF.  In it she complains that Gloria hasn’t paid (about $200+ each) to have supervised visits with her mother over the last 2 years, but then again, Gloria’s money was frozen by the court going back to late Dec. 2009, so who was supposed to pay that huge (and wired in court supervisor bill).

Well, no one ever explained that one.  They (wrongfully) froze all of  Gloria’s money.  Carolyn claims the estate was broke, despite KD’s business records regarding Mary’s estate and ownership of $1 to $2 in gold coins and other valuables in a safe deposit box, so I don’t get all of this.

Read on below.

Joanne

From: JoAnne M Denison <jdenison@surfree.com> [Edit Address Book]
To: cfarenga@comcast.net, kenneth ditkowsky
Subject: Re: Son of Greylord
Date: Aug 8, 2012 9:03 AM
Dear Cynthia:

Are you kidding? You can’t just say “I don’t believe” you when the Sykes’ family lawyer says this was reported to him as a business record and in the ordinary course of business.  Other You have to INVESTIGATE as it really was your fiduciary duty.

With respect to the “stupervised” visits, are you kidding? Didn’t you render Gloria homeless and penniless?  How is she supposed to pay for those visits?

You put that family in a position where Gloria, a long term, excellent caregiver, was removed, Mary was stripped from her home by a second estranged daughter that complained, moaned and groaned each time she took Mary to give Gloria some relief.

Now the court has no jurisdiction, and has operated on no jurisdiction for years.

What a mess.

But YOU can fix it and do the right thing.

thanks

Joanne

—–Original Message—–
From: cfarenga@comcast.net
Sent: Aug 8, 2012 1:19 AM
To: kenneth ditkowsky
Cc: Tim Lahrman NASGA , states attorney , Cook County Sheriff , scott evans , JoAnne M Denison , DiAnn Matson , JohnHowardWyman@gmail.com, NASGA , probate sharks , Michigan Advocacy Project
Subject: Re: Son of Greylord

A million imaginary dollars
. I cannot imagine why Gloria would rather not see her mother, even while claiming   that she is neglected/abused, because she refuses to pay for a supervised visit. Nobody would think  less of her for accepting this requirement while she is in the midst of litigating, but to not see your own mother for years. I feel sorry for all of you.
I know, I know, you’re arranging my free room and board. Clearly, I do not believe in your delusions and will talk to any law enforcement people about this matter, gladly.

From: “kenneth ditkowsky” <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>
To: “NASGA” <nasga.org@gmail.com>, “probate sharks” <verenusl@gmail.com>, “Michigan Advocacy Project” <michiganadvocacyproject@gmail.com>
Cc: “Tim Lahrman NASGA” <timlahrman@aol.com>,
Sent: Tuesday, August 7, 2012 11:21:31 PM
Subject: Son of Greylord

I understand that on Thursday the ‘Son of Greylord’ is going to make its debut.

when the grand opening occurs I will believe it – however, if not now = soon!      Gloria has put in her bid to play CF in the ‘movie!’       I told her that she is too tall – but you know Gloria.     No one wants to play MS!     I am actively recruiting ****, but ******.

Mr. W is working on getting 60 minutes interested in the scandal involving ‘elder abuse’ and ‘exploitation of the elderly.”    The year 2012 -13 should be very interesting – maybe we can remediate some of the damage that has been done to our society by the avarice that has been exhibited and documented.      It is time that the Son of Greylord be exposed to the clear light of day light.    I wonder when the IRS and IDR will appear on the scene to collect the accrued taxes, interest and penalties – in Sykes it is well over a million dollars at this point in time.

Ken Ditkowsky
http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/

But the best email yet is from Gloria herself who knows how to compose the most compelling pleas yet.  And she makes some excellent points. Why is it CF and AS want her to pay for a “visitation supervisor” when she would rather pay for a “deception expert” to examine carefully CF, AS and CT.  Now THAT would be money well spent!

Cynthia Farenga and Adam Stern,

Also, please find out what happened to my mother’s salvation and beloved pooch, Hannah.  I was told Toerpe overmedicated Hannah and abused her and she is dead (just like the Toerpes killed their pooch TJ years ago because they medically neglected him).  Then prove your allegation that I’ve abused my mother…. when in fact, you are protecting Toerpe from all she is doing and all she had done and is doing, you are pointing the finger at me…. FYI stop threatening my family, CF and AS.  

Subject: Son of Greylord

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Aug 5, 2012 10:36 AM
To: states attorney , mary wooley state police , Cook County Sheriff , matt senator kirk , Chicago Tribune , SUNTIMES , GLORIA Jean SYKES
Cc: “Chief David E.. Dial Naperville” , Tim Lahrman NASGA
Subject: Fw: forgot something…. – son of greylord

http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/

Dear Ken;

You bring up an excellent point, as the Sykes family attorney, you knew about the coins for years.  Has any law enforcement called you about their disappearance?  I bet not one.  CF and AS keep on telling the court they are Gloria’s imagination.  The miscreants do not mention you were the family attorney, you did the Sykes family estate planning and those assets were disclosed to you in an inventory in the normal course of your business.  why is there story A for court and story B for the rest of the family and attys trying to help the family?

Why do AS and CF keep on telling the court one story and not the other?   Why doesn’t law enforcement look into all of this?  Where did the money come from for what the Toerpe’s have spent?  Okay, maybe this is all innocent and they won the lottery legally, but where is the investigation?

Any FBI or Illinois law enforcement officer could easily do an asset search in minutes, get credit card statements in minutes.  Figure out the laundering of this.  Where were the gold coins sold?  What is the path of their cash dealings?

And a better question is, how is it I keep on faxing Diane Saltoun, Executive Director of the IAG, Hon. Judge Timothy Evans, Presiding Judge of the Cook County Circuit Court, Atty Leah Black at the Ill. ARDC and others screaming the Sykes case has gone on without jurisdiction for 3 years since Dec 7, 2009, and I get nary a response?  How is this happening?
Yesterday, I saw in the SunTimes paper Lisa Madigan wrote an entire article (or perhaps wasted it) on student loan predatory lending practices and mentioned numerous well known offenders–as if this is news.  Heck, unless you’re brain dead, everyone’s been clamouring about that for years and years now.

But one little old lady and nothing.  Nada.  Barely a peep.  Mary has been suffering for 3 years now, tossed out of her home, her daughter whom I know she loves dearly and whom Mary wanted to live with her for 10 years–Gloria.  What happens when CT gets appointed Plenary Guardian–she evicts her own sister?

Is this the kind, caring person you want to be for your own guardian.  Someone that would evict her own sister that has been a long time caregiver of mom for 10+ years.

Who runs a Probate Court and provides laws that condones that type of desperate human cruelty?

Are these not our duly elected officials?  Aren’t they all attorneys who know how important it is to have jurisdiction (an important constitutional right belonging to Mary G Sykes)..

You park in a bus stop in Chicago, and the ticket is $100 and is doubled in about 2 weeks and the collections efforts are relentless by the city, but dozens of faxes, emails, cries for help for one elderly grandma, and everything is IGNORED, IGNORED, IGNORED.

I have a lot of questions, but no answers.

thanks for another excellent post.

JoAnne

Dear Readers;

As many of you are aware, there are tremendous problems in Probate Court, Cook County, Illinois, regarding many issues that make life extremely difficult for the disabled.

While this document most likely won’t even solve a portion of those problems, at least it 1) makes people aware these are severe problems, 2) perhaps the Illinois Legislature can give its grace to some of these clauses and provisions and 3) we need to figure out a way to solve the current crisis where people are declared incompetent, they want an atty but are not brave or strong enough to tell that to their abuser–esp. when the abuser is the Guardian and/or the GAL, and we need to warn people up front to make an inventory of valuable personal items and give it to your insurance company and attorney.

Use the Reply section if you can think of anything else.

I’ll post this from time to time to see if there are improvements.

AS ALWAYS, HAVE AN ATTY REVIEW ALL DOCUMENTS YOU SIGN!

thanks

JoAnne

POWER OF ATTORNEY FOR HEALTH CARE

ILLINOIS STATUTORY SHORT FORM POWER OF ATTORNEY FOR HEALTH CARE
(NOTICE: THE PURPOSE OF THIS POWER OF ATTORNEY IS TO GIVE THE PERSON
YOU DESIGNATE (YOUR “AGENT”) BROAD POWERS TO MAKE HEALTH CARE
DECISIONS FOR YOU, INCLUDING POWER TO REQUIRE, CONSENT TO OR
WITHDRAW ANY TYPE OF PERSONAL CARE OR MEDICAL TREATMENT FOR ANY
PHYSICAL OR MENTAL CONDITION AND TO ADMIT YOU TO OR DISCHARGE YOU
FROM ANY HOSPITAL, HOME OR OTHER INSTITUTION. THIS FORM DOES NOT
IMPOSE A DUTY ON YOUR AGENT TO EXERCISE GRANTED POWERS; BUT WHEN
POWERS ARE EXERCISED, YOUR AGENT WILL HAVE TO USE DUE CARE TO ACT
FOR YOUR BENEFIT AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS FORM AND KEEP A
RECORD OF RECEIPTS, DISBURSEMENTS AND SIGNIFICANT ACTIONS TAKEN AS
AGENT. A COURT CAN TAKE AWAY THE POWERS OF YOUR AGENT IF IT FINDS
THE AGENT IS NOT ACTING PROPERLY. YOU MAY NAME SUCCESSOR AGENTS
UNDER THIS FORM BUT NOT CO-AGENTS, AND NO HEALTH CARE PROVIDER MAY
BE NAMED. UNLESS YOU EXPRESSLY LIMIT THE DURATION OF THIS POWER IN
THE MANNER PROVIDED BELOW, UNTIL YOU REVOKE THIS POWER OR A COURT
ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF TERMINATES IT, YOUR AGENT MAY EXERCISE THE
POWERS GIVEN HERE THROUGHOUT YOUR LIFETIME, EVEN AFTER YOU BECOME
DISABLED. THE POWERS YOU GIVE YOUR AGENT, YOUR RIGHT TO REVOKE
THOSE POWERS AND THE PENALTIES FOR VIOLATING THE LAW ARE EXPLAINED
MORE FULLY IN SECTIONS 4-5, 4-6, 4-9 AND 4-10(b) OF THE ILLINOIS “POWERS OF
ATTORNEY FOR HEALTH CARE LAW” OF WHICH THIS FORM IS A PART (SEE THE
BACK OF THIS FORM). THAT LAW EXPRESSLY PERMITS THE USE OF ANY
DIFFERENT FORM OF POWER OF ATTORNEY YOU MAY DESIRE. IF THERE IS
ANYTHING ABOUT THIS FORM THAT YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND, YOU SHOULD
ASK A LAWYER TO EXPLAIN IT TO YOU.)

THIS POWER OF ATTORNEY has been made and signed on

this ___ day of ________________ 20___

I hereby appoint:  (insert name and address of principal)

name: _____________________________________

address:_________________________________________________________________
(insert name and address of agent)

as my attorney-in-fact (my “agent”) to act for me and in my name (in any way I could act in
person) to make any and all decisions for me concerning my personal care, medical treatment, hospitalization and health care and to require, withhold or withdraw any type of medical treatment or procedure, even though my death may ensue. My agent shall have the same access to my medical records that I have, including the right to disclose the contents to others. My agent shall also have full power to authorize an autopsy and direct the disposition of my remains. Effective upon my death, my agent has the full power to make an anatomical gift of the
following (initial one):
_________ (initials) Any organ OR
_________ (initials) Specific organs: _________________________________________

(THE ABOVE GRANT OF POWER IS INTENDED TO BE AS BROAD AS POSSIBLE SO
THAT YOUR AGENT WILL HAVE AUTHORITY TO MAKE ANY DECISION YOU
COULD MAKE TO OBTAIN OR TERMINATE ANY TYPE OF HEALTH CARE,
INCLUDING WITHDRAWAL OF FOOD AND WATER AND OTHER LIFE-SUSTAINING
MEASURES, IF YOUR AGENT BELIEVES SUCH ACTION WOULD BE CONSISTENT
WITH YOUR INTENT AND DESIRES. IF YOU WISH TO LIMIT THE SCOPE OF YOUR
AGENT’S POWERS OR PRESCRIBE SPECIAL RULES OR LIMIT THE POWER TO MAKE AN ANATOMICAL GIFT, AUTHORIZE AUTOPSY OR DISPOSE OF REMAINS, YOU MAY DO SO IN THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPHS.)

2.The powers granted above shall not include the following powers or shall be subject to the following rules or limitations (here you may include any specific limitations you deem
appropriate, such as: your own definition of when life-sustaining measures should be withheld; a direction to continue food and fluids or life-sustaining treatment in all events; or instructions to refuse any specific types of treatment that are inconsistent with your religious beliefs or unacceptable to you for any other reason, such as blood transfusion, electro-convulsive therapy, amputation, psychosurgery, voluntary admission to a mental institution, etc.):

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

(THE SUBJECT OF LIFE-SUSTAINING TREATMENT IS OF PARTICULAR
IMPORTANCE. FOR YOUR CONVENIENCE IN DEALING WITH THAT SUBJECT, SOME
GENERAL STATEMENTS CONCERNING THE WITHHOLDING OR REMOVAL OF LIFESUSTAINING    TREATMENT ARE SET FORTH BELOW. IF YOU AGREE WITH ONE OFTHESE STATEMENTS, YOU MAY INITIAL THAT STATEMENT; BUT DO NOT INITIAL
MORE THAN ONE):

_______(initial, if desired) I do not want my life to be prolonged nor do I want life-sustaining treatment to be provided or continued if my agent believes the burdens of the treatment outweigh the expected benefits. I want my agent to consider the relief of suffering, the expense involved and the quality as well as the possible extension of my life in making decisions concerning life-sustaining treatment, OR:

_______(initial, if desired) I want my life to be prolonged and I want life-sustaining treatment to be provided or continued unless I am in a coma which my attending physician believes to be irreversible, in accordance with reasonable medical standards at the time of reference. If and when I have suffered irreversible coma, I want life-sustaining treatment to be withheld or discontinued, OR:

_______(initial, if desired) I want my life to be prolonged to the greatest extent possible without regard to my condition, the chances I have for recovery or the cost of the procedures.

(THIS POWER OF ATTORNEY MAY BE AMENDED OR REVOKED BY YOU IN THE
MANNER PROVIDED IN SECTION 4-6 OF THE ILLINOIS “POWERS OF ATTORNEY
FOR HEALTH CARE LAW” (SEE THE BACK OF THIS FORM). ABSENT AMENDMENT
OR REVOCATION, THE AUTHORITY GRANTED IN THIS POWER OF ATTORNEY
WILL BECOME EFFECTIVE AT THE TIME THIS POWER IS SIGNED AND WILL
CONTINUE UNTIL YOUR DEATH, AND BEYOND IF ANATOMICAL GIFT, AUTOPSY
OR DISPOSITION OF REMAINS IS AUTHORIZED, UNLESS A LIMITATION ON THE
BEGINNING DATE OR DURATION IS MADE BY INITIALING AND COMPLETING
EITHER OR BOTH OF THE FOLLOWING:)

3.(______) This power of attorney shall become effective on
_____________________________________________________________________

(insert a future date or event during your lifetime, such as court determination of your
disability, when you want this power to first take effect)
4.(_____ ) This power of attorney shall terminate on

____________________________________________________________________.
(insert a future date or event, such as court determination of your disability, when you want this power to terminate prior to your death)

(IF YOU WISH TO NAME SUCCESSOR AGENTS, INSERT THE NAMES AND
ADDRESSES OF SUCH SUCCESSORS IN THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH.)

5.If any agent named by me shall die, become incompetent, resign, refuse to accept the office of agent or be unavailable, I name the following (each to act alone and successively, in the order named) as successors to such agent:

_________________________________________________________(name & address)

_________________________________________________________(name & address)

For purposes of this paragraph 5, a person shall be considered to be incompetent if and while the person is a minor or an adjudicated incompetent or disabled person or the person is unable to give prompt and intelligent consideration to health care matters, as certified by a licensed physician. (IF YOU WISH TO NAME YOUR AGENT AS GUARDIAN OF YOUR PERSON, IN THE EVENT A COURT DECIDES THAT ONE SHOULD BE APPOINTED, YOU MAY, BUT ARE NOT REQUIRED TO, DO SO BY RETAINING THE FOLLOWING
PARAGRAPH. THE COURT WILL APPOINT YOUR AGENT IF THE COURT FINDS
THAT SUCH APPOINTMENT WILL SERVE YOUR BEST INTERESTS AND WELFARE.
STRIKE OUT PARAGRAPH 6 IF YOU DO NOT WANT YOUR AGENT TO ACT AS
GUARDIAN.)

6.If a guardian of my person is to be appointed, I nominate the agent acting under this power of attorney as such guardian, to serve without bond or security.

7.I am fully informed as to all the contents of this form and understand the full import of this
grant of powers to my agent.

8.  I have adopted the attached Probate Health Care Rider with specific instructions to the Probate Court should I be ajudicated “disabled” in any Probate Court where I am located.

Signed______________________________________
(principal)

The principal has had an opportunity to read the above form and has signed the form or
acknowledged his or her signature or mark on the form in my presence.
.Signed: __________________________________________(witness)

Name of witness printed ______________________________________

Address of witness __________________________________________

(YOU MAY, BUT ARE NOT REQUIRED TO, REQUEST YOUR AGENT AND
SUCCESSOR AGENTS TO PROVIDE SPECIMEN SIGNATURES BELOW. IF YOU
INCLUDE SPECIMEN SIGNATURES IN THIS POWER OF ATTORNEY, YOU MUST
COMPLETE THE CERTIFICATION OPPOSITE THE SIGNATURES OF THE AGENTS.)
Specimen signatures of agent (and I certify that the signatures of my
successors). agent (and successors) are correct.

____________________________________________
(agent) (principal)

____________________________________________
(successor agent) (principal)

____________________________________________
(successor agent) (principal)

PROBATE COURT RIDER

Dated this _____ day of __________________ 20___

I hereby declare that I do not agree with all aspects of how the Probate Courts function in most states, and in particular the Illinois Probate Court.

I therefore am leaving specific instructions to my Power of Attorney (POA) Agent for Health Care appointed in the foregoing Rider:

My close relatives are as follows: (list all adult children and siblings and their addresses).

____________________________(name) ______________________(relationship) _______________________________________________________(address)

____________________________(name) ______________________(relationship)  _______________________________________________________(address)

____________________________(name) ______________________(relationship)  _______________________________________________________(address)

____________________________(name) ______________________(relationship)  _______________________________________________________(address)

____________________________(name) ______________________(relationship)  _______________________________________________________(address)

______ a separate sheet attached hereto names additional persons I desire to be informed of any hearing to have me declared incompetent

I direct that no one shall be appointed as my legal Guardian unless and until these individuals have been properly served notice of any hearing to have me declared incompetent in accordance with relevant laws.

I further direct that none of the above individuals shall ever be barred from contacting me by any and all means, including, but not limited to: mail, phone, fax, in person, as long as I indicate a desire to see those individuals.

Exception: ____________________________________________________(names)
No Guardian of mine shall ever ban a person from seeing me on the grounds it “agitates me”–as long as I indicate a desire to see, phone, email, etc. that person.

I shall not be banned from using a phone to call a family member.  I shall be provided with my own cell phone at all times.

No Guardian shall keep me apart from my family or isolated.  If a family member comes calling during reasonable visiting hours (noon to 8 pm or ___________________state otherwise), they shall be given access to me that day or the day following if I am at home.

I shall not be forced to take  “psychotropic drugs” to “calm me down” if I am not in fact violent or a danger to myself or others.

I shall not be placed in a nursing home as long as I have funds to stay at home with a hired nurse.  My house may be further encumbered to provide funds.  Any Guardian that attempts to sell my home to place me in a nursing home will NOT inherit under my will, and they may be immediately removed by any relative willing to take me in.  That relative will have an increased share in my estate, as further specified in my will.  (Note this provision must also be put in your will.  See a lawyer to have this done).  I direct that if I am a wander risk or a fall risk, that I stay in my home and my Guardian purchase appropriate electronic alarms so I do not leave without supervision, and I do not get out of a chair or bed without assistance.  These are NOT reasons to place me in a nursing home).

I direct that even if I am declared incompetent, that I stay in my home and that the following relatives may continue to live in my home and will not be evicted by the Probate Court:

_______________________________________________________________________
(you may wish to list a spouse or minor children or grandchildren).

If any Guardianship is filed against me, I do not want a court appointed lawyer to represent me, I desire the following attorneys have access to me for the purposes of fighting the guardianship and determining that my Guardian acts in accordance with my wishes:

_________________________________________________________(name & address)

if that lawyer cannot or will not act, then please contact:

_________________________________________________________(name & address)

________ (initials) No lawyer I name shall be disqualified because he or she drafted a document for another family member, engaged in litigation for another family member, notarized a document, etc.  I hereby waive any such conflict to the fullest extent the laws allow me to do so.  Any relative presenting or advocating such a conflict will not inherit under my will.  (Provision must also appear in your will–see a lawyer).

_______ (initials) I further direct that my lawyer ensure that no GAL or judge be used on my Estate who has been listed on NAGSA’s website pages entitled “WANTED!”  My attorney is directed to seek/remove any such GAL or judge involved in my case.

I have carefully inventoried my valuable possessions and have taken photos of these items and provided them to my attorney.  I promise to update my inventory on at least a yearly basis.  If they are missing, I ask that law enforcement investigate.

I herewith approve this Rider as further advance directives and as if fully incorporated in the foregoing Power of Attorney for Health Care.

Signed: _________________________________

Name printed: ____________________________________

 
JoAnne

Dear Readers;

While KD is exploring breaking up the nursing home game in the US and in Chicago (and that’s the real reason he and I have ARDC complaints against us that are totally bogus in nature), we are thinking about quicker ways to solve the problem and stop all of this nonsense in its tracks.  Ken assures me the nursing home/probate game is a racket, tied into a small cluster of evil and greedy people that need not be mentioned here, well, because it would only give energy to this nastiness.

However, one thing I was thinking about that would help immediately, is putting a “drop dead” clause in an advance directives form.  These are currently called Statutory Power of Attorney Forms for Health Care and you can find them on a number of websites.  If you don’t have yours completed and put in a safe place with copies to everyone that holds this Power, please do so now.

Drop Dead clauses are typically found in wills where the Testator (no, it’s not some person with testicles, it’s someone who made a will), states “if you challenge my will, you are automatically disinherited.”  They’re an effective plan to stop the kids and/or grandkids, ex spouses, whatever, from arguing over a will in Probate.  The Illinois Supreme Court has said these are legal, so I would imagine the same thing said in a Power of Attorney (POA) for Health Care should be legal too.

Currently, there are waaay too many people in nursing homes because someone put them there (including the Public Guardian) and did not try to keep them at home and have a visiting nurse.  Many of these people are poor and elderly.

But it makes absolutely no sense to institutionalize someone for that reason.  In an institution, these people are warehoused and don’t like it.  We know because they complain there.  I have seen it over and over.  They can’t get out, they can’t get around, the food is bad and not nutritional (no Whole Foods in a nursing home–yet), and they are subject to being charged exorbitant fees for all sorts of things from dispensing an aspirin at $7 per pop, to $50 rides to doctors’ appointments at local clinics and all sorts of shenanigans.

The reality is, a patient in his or own home who is provided with a visiting nurse or live in nurse, as required, when it becomes necessary, will live an average of 7 years longer.  The same person placed in a nursing home lives only 3 years longer!

You see the ads for attorneys left and right crying to hear of nursing home abuse cases, and we know it is a constant dilemma under the current system of stacking grandmas and grandpas there.

I wonder if we can put in our POA for Health Care that no relative is to be “barred from seeing me” by the Probate Court (list the relatives) because they agitate me? Would that be legal?  After what I’ve seen in many, many cases, I want that.

Seniors should have the right to get agitated if they want to see their children and grandchildren, but can’t.

Okay, that gives me a great idea.  And you can email me with more great ideas.  Maybe the Illinois State Legislature WILL put these in its Statutory form POA for Health Care.

I’m tired of this nutty stuff going on, aren’t you?  Doesn’t it tick you off to no end that this has to be spelled out in your POA for Health Care?

Judge Connors ignored Gloria’s POA and invalidated it–without a hearing or findings.  But I guess it doesn’t matter, because all the orders she issued after Dec 7, 2009 are void ab initio, because that’s when the court lost jurisdiction by its failure to serve Sodini notices properly.

As Gloria points out, Peter Schmeidel has admitted that.

take care and I’ll draft something up for you all.

Maybe I should put Cynthia Farenga’s name on it and suggest SHE use it for all her bad karma on the Sykes case?  Hmmm. Gotta think about it.

JoAnne

Dear Readers;

Since the posts to Cynthia Farenga were soooo popular and have bumped up readership so very much, I have decided to help Cynthia Farenga even more.

She whined she had no help.  Well, I love to help and rescue people, so see below.  I will post the .wpd and .rtf files later or if CF emails me directly.

BUT HERE IS SOME DISCOVERY THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SERVED ON CAROLYN TOERPE, AS THE EVENTS OCCURRED.

Now it’s sooo much later, there’s a lot of it to respond to.  Sorry, not my fault.

And please don’t write me and say I can’t publish pleadings I want CF to file, or some other such nonsense.  Ken’s published many a case and many a diatribe on our First Amendment right to free speech, and if you are part of the press (and this blog is, it is up to about 10,000 views now), there is even wider latitude to publish cyber junk.

This IS commentary, some of it is satire, but mostly it is to get the GAL’s to do their job.  Investigate the Plenary Guardian and remove her for lack of jurisdiction and all the crap she’s pulled in the clear abuse and corruption of that position.   Sheesh.

JoAnne

DISCLAIMER: GO READ THE DISCLAIMER PAGE

You will know when this has been filed or served upon a true miscreant, because KD and I will post a video of us dancing on this blog!  Fer sure, for real.  Come on, Cynthia, make us (honest) attorneys dance.

Attorney Code__________

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

In Re the Estate of

Mary G. Sykes,
A disabled person

Case No.: 09 P 4858

Hon. Jane Louise Stuart

CYNTHIA FARENGA’S FIRST DISCOVERY REQUESTS TO  PLENARY GUARDIAN CAROLYN TOERPE
NOW COMES GAL, Guardian ad Litem, Cynthia Farenga and respectfully requests that Carolyn Toerpe (“CT) to answer the following Interrogatories and Requests for Documents within thirty (30) days fromt he  and Requests to Admit within 28 (twenty eight) days from service thereof in accordance with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 214:
INSTRUCTIONS:
A.  Time Frame:  You are instructed to provide documents and answers all time periods that you will be challenging, discussing or commenting upon Gloria’s financial dealings with her mother, including at least 6 months prior to.  You are further instructed to provide all documents with respect to your dealings from January 2009 to present.
Where a request indicates that you are to identify a person or entity, you must provide all contact information you have in possession, including  the name and address, phone number, fax number, efax number, website address(es), email address(es)  of that person or entity.
INTERROGATORIES:
1.    Provide a listing of all financial documents in your possession, including, but not limited to, names of banks and bank records which you control or possess for yourself or Mary, financial documents, including notes, bonds and stocks, records relating to security deposit boxes, and identify the financial institution so named.
2.    State all times and methods you have used to enter Mary’s or your safe deposit or Gloria’s boxes for the time period in question and state what you found (to the best of your recollection), and if any items or things were removed therefrom.
3.    State all the times you have entered Mary’s home at 6016 N Avondale Chicago and have removed any items or things belonging to Mary and/or Gloria and state if they were taken with permission, and if so, whose permission they were taken with.
4.    Provide all contracts, documents and things which establish or tend to establish any agreement between yourself and Gloria or Mary and Gloria with respect to any financial matters or dealings.
5.    State the amount and type of financial assistance which you have provided to Mary in the past and which you intend to provide to her in the future.
6.    Provide copies of any correspondence between yourself and Mary referring or relating to any financial matters or living arrangements or support of her.
7.    State when and where you have heard Mary state she wants to go live at her home on Avondale in Chicago.
8.    Carefully identify any statements made in the attached Exhibit A, Table of Torts, which you believe to be misleading or untrue, and state all reasons for such beliefs.
REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS:
You are herewith directed to provide the following documents or access for copying within thirty (30) days from the date shown in the attached Certificate of Service.
9.    Financial records referring or relating to Carolyn and Mary in Carolyn’s possession or control, including, but not limited to: tax returns, financial statements, investments, bank accounts, savings accounts, annuities, insurance records, mortgage records, safe deposit box records.
10.    Provide all receipts, records and documents and things referred to in your answer to Int. No. 9, supra.
11.    Provide copies of any correspondence between yourself and Mary referring or relating to any financial matters or living arrangements or support of her.
12.    Provide all canceled checks, deposit slips, withdrawal slips, memoranda, check registers and bank statements for any and all accounts with any banks or other institutions holding money or assets, foreign or domestic, whether in the nature of checking, savings or money market funds, wholly or partially, in your name or in Mary’s name, moreover which she has a right of  withdrawal or check signing power for the period January 1, 2006, to date.  If any savings accounts, then you shall produce all savings account passbooks or, in the event of certificates of deposit, you shall produce the certificates of deposit in your name or Mary’s name all cancelled checks, deposit slips, withdrawal slips, memoranda, check registers and bank statements for any and all accounts with any banks or other institutions holding money or assets, foreign or domestic, whether in the nature of checking, savings or money market funds, wholly or partially, in the name of yourself or Mary, which you or she has a right of  withdrawal.  If any savings accounts, then you shall produce all savings account passbooks or, in the event of certificates of deposit, then you shall produce the certificates of deposit.
13.    All evidences of indebtedness reflecting debts owed by you or Mary or owed to you or Mary.
14.    All monthly statements, as well as purchaser’s receipts, for credit card accounts over which you or Mary has the right to make credit purchases for the past 24 months.
15.    All commercial paper owned by you or Mary, wholly or partially, in her name or in the name of the trustee or nominee.
16.    Statements sent to you or Mary from any brokerage firms for accounts over which you or Mary have the power to buy or to sell or which are wholly or partially in you or Mary’s name or under the name of any other person or entity.  These accounts include stocks, mutual funds, bonds, cash accounts, margin accounts, option contracts, commodities, and/or investments of every kind.
17.    Any and all trust agreements, partnership agreements or joint venture agreements by virtue of which you or Mary wholly or partially has an interest in any real estate business, enterprise or real estate venture.
18.    All gift tax returns prepared by or for you or Mary for the time period in question.
19.    All loan applications and credit applications from January 1, 2006, to the date of production made both individually by you or Mary, jointly with others and/or on behalf of any partnership or corporate entity in which he has an interest, together with all net worth and/or financial statements submitted in conjunction therewith.
20.    All evidences of money and property received by you or Mary, by inheritance or gift, including, but not limited to, copies of distribution receipts and probate signed to the values thereof at the time of receipt and all evidences pertaining to the current values.
21.    The Last Will and Testament, Inventory and Final Account filed with the court for any estate for you or Mary, was a beneficiary and copies of all federal estate tax returns and state inheritance tax returns which contain information pertaining to the property inherited by her.
22.    All books, records and documents relating to any and all expenses incurred by you or any of your businesses (whether incorporated or not), or any business in which you hold full or partial interest in, from January 1, 2006, to date, including, but not limited to, bills, cash receipts, itemized receipts, contracts, loans, expenses lists, expense records and the like.
23.    Copy of recording tape or transcription of any telephonic or other recording devices used for eavesdropping purposes.
24.    Copies of all photographs and any written or recorded statements from anyone concerning any of the issues involved in or relating to this litigation.
25.    Any and all reports, memoranda, correspondence or other documents regarding any expert examinations or reports of purported expert witnesses which you have used or considered using in this litigation.
26.    Any and all photographs, notes, letters, diaries, memoranda, reports, written statements, calendars, ledgers and all other such items or things which you now have in your possession or control which relate to any allegations you have made regarding Mary or Gloria.
27.    All documents and things in your possession (including electronic communications) which refer or related to Mary or Gloria or any of the issues or allegation in the above captioned litigation.

REQUESTS TO ADMIT:
FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS:
The term “GAL’s” refers to AS and CF (yourself) collectively.
The term CRLTO refers to the Chicago Landlord Tenant Ordinance.
The term “Estate” refers to the “Estate of Mary G Sykes” or case 2009 P 04585.
The term “White Mary House” refers to the home where Mary G Sykes lived, or 6014 N Avondale.
The term “Brown Gloria House” refers to the home where Gloria Sykes lived prior to it being destroyed by mold (and Peter Schmeidel/Chase), or 6016 N Avondale.
The term “Gloria” or “GS” means Gloria Sykes
The term “MGS” or “Mary” means Mary G Sykes
“PS” is Peter Schmeidel; “HW” is Harvey Waller; “CT” is Carolyn Toerpe; “FT” is Fred Toerpe; “CF” is Cynthia Farenga; “AS” is Adam Stern
The term “wired” means any type of corruption or preferential treatment in court, including promises of money, position, continued employment in and out of the courtroom, etc.  This also includes promises from any judge (Daley center or not), political favor, or court room employee for money, continued employment or preferential treatment.
You are directed to admit or deny the following statements within 28 days from the date of service show in the Certificate of Service attached hereto:
28.    That you have been told by GS that $4,000 was removed wrongfully from the Pullman bank account of MS in 2009 and you took no action.
29.    That you are aware that this action caused MGS to prepare a Petition for an Order of Protection against CT.
30.    That you have been told that the removal of $4,000 from the bank account of MGS was allegedly to start a retirement account for MGS.
31.    That you have been told that the removal of $4,000 from the bank account of MGS was purportedly to start a retirement account for MGS
32.    That you knew that MGS at age 90+ was ineligible for a retirement account pursuant to IRS rules, regulations and/or statutory law.
33.    That at the time, MGS was not in need of establishing a retirement account.
34.    That you did not serve any discovery upon Pullman Bank regarding the withdrawl of the $4,000.
35.    That you did not track the $4,000 from Pullman Bank to any other bank account and find out who moved it and when.
36.    That you are not interested in whether CT misappropriate $4,000 from the funds of MGS and therefore did not conduct any proper investigation.
37.    That GS paid two mortgages for approximately 10+ years.
38.    That GS paid the mortgage on 6014 for approximately 10+ years.
39.    That GS paid the mortgage on 6016 for approximately 10+ years.
40.    That the income of MGS was substantially $1900 per month in the year 2010.
41.    That the income of MGS from 2005 to 2010 was $1900 per month.
42.    That the income of MGS being only $1900 per month was insufficient to pay all the expenses of MGS.
43.    That MGS prefers to eat vegetarian.
44.    That MGS prefers to eat vegetarian and organic.
45.    That CT does not provide MGS with organic, vegetarian food which MGS prefers.
46.    That GS always fed MGS a vegetarian diet.
47.    That GS regularly bought MGS high quality vegetarian food.
48.    That GS regularly shopped for MGS at Whole Foods.
49.    That GS regularly purchased a meal plan from Ambutol in Chicago.
50.    That you are aware Ambutol prepares gourmet vegetarian meals.
51.    That GS provided MGS with gourmet vegetarian meals from Ambutol.
52.    That CT does not shop at Whole Foods for the food for MGS.
53.    That CT does not provide as many vegetarian, organic foods as she can for GS.
54.    That no GAL has ever recommended setting up a retirement account for a 90+ year old person, that you have ever head of.
55.    That you have never obtained any bank records to me from Pullman bank regarding the $4,000 withdrawal.
56.    That you were the Respondent in a Petition for an OOP in 2009.
57.    That prior to being appointed as Plenary Guardian you did not properly inform Judge Connors of this fact.
58.    That when you were appointed Plenary Guardian in Dec. 2009, you did not inform Judge Connors that the jurisdictional 14 day notice of hearing was served upon the two sisters of MGS.
59.    That when you were appointed Plenary Guardian in Dec. 2009, you did not inform Judge Connors that the jurisdictional 14 day notice of hearing was never served upon sister Josephine.
60.    That when you were appointed Plenary Guardian in Dec. 2009, you did not inform Judge Connors that the jurisdictional 14 day notice of hearing was never served upon sister Yolanda.
61.    You have never informed the court it has been acting without jurisdiction.
62.    PS has never informed the court it has been acting without jurisdiction since Dec 2009.
63.    HW has never informed the court it has been acting without jurisdiction since Dec 2009.
64.    A competent attorney would have promptly brought this issue to the court’s attention promptly after having been discovered.
65.    KD and Gloria have been repeatedly informing you that the Probate Court is acting without jurisdiction.
66.    HW has admitted that no 14 day notices were timely served on sisters Yolanda and Josephine prior to the hearing appointing CT.
67.    HW has admitted on the record that no 14 day jurisdictional notices were timely served on Gloria prior to the hearing appointing CT.
68.    That the doctor’s report presented with CT’s Petition for Guardianship in July 2009 was legally deficient in that it was not signed by a medical physician that actually conducted the examination.
69.    That Dr. Motckya who signed the CP211 form was in fact a PsychD.
70.    That Dr. Motckya who is a PsychD cannot sign a CP211 pursuant to the Probate Act for the purposes of presenting a Petition for guardianship.
71.    That you signed a CCP211 as a “PhD” when in fact you have no PhD.
72.    That counsel for GS repeatedly asked for discovery prior to your being apointed a Plenary Guardian in Dec 2009.
73.    That GS was repeatedly denied any requests for discovery prior to appointing CT as PG in Dec 2009.
74.    That you did not tell the court that GS was entitled to discovery in this case in Dec 2009.
75.    That you have never, in fact told the court GS should be allowed discovery.
76.    That AS knowingly filed a wrongful petition for sanctions against KD.
77.    When AS filed a petition for sanctions against KD, both GAL’s knew he never had appeared in the Probate Court.
78.    That the filing of ARDC complaints against KD and JMD for expressing opinions on a blog constituted a violation of the Illinois CPA. 735 ILCS § 110 et. Seq.
79.    As a GAL, the filing of that ARDC complaint against KD brings substantial liability to the Estate captioned above.
80.    A GAL that brings liability to a ward’s estate should immediately report it to the court and be removed.
81.    The reason why AS was not sanctioned by the Probate Court for filing a false Petition for Sanctions against KD is because the court is wired–or it sure looks like it.
82.    The reason why AS’s Motion to Disqualify JMD was rubber stamped by Judge Connors is because the court is wired.
83.    AS filed a Petition to Disqualify JMD as counsel for Gloria because as CF said JMD will assuredly “paper me [meaning the GAL’s to death].”
84.    JMD accordingly became the subject of a Motion to Disqualify (“MTDQ”) filed by AS and endorsed by CF because she is a competent attorney.
85.    CF and AS knew that the filing of a MTDQ JMD was wrongful and in derrogation of well established law.
86.    CF and AS misrepresented to the court they had sufficient grounds to file the MTDQ when in fact they did not.
87.    That in Dec 2009 GS had filed a number of pleadings, and AS asked the court to strike all the pleadings of GS because she was pro se.
88.    That those pleadings in Dec 2009 were in fact filed pro se and so there was no reason to strike those pleadings.
89.    That you have been informed by numerous family and friends that Gloria took excellent care of her mother for 10+ years.
90.    You have been informed that Gloria returned from California after her father died to take care of her mother.
91.    You have been informed that Gloria provided Mary with designer clothes to wear.
92.    You have been informed that Gloria provided Mary with monthly trips to the salon for hair and nails.
93.    That the Probate Court trashed Gloria’s care plan on purpose and because the proceeding was wired.
94.    That Gloria’s care plan was more than adequate and similar or exactly the same as yours.
95.    That while Gloria didn’t know the name of Mary’s one hypertension medication, she knew what a CBC was and the judge didn’t.
96.    Most people know that a CBC is a Complete Blood Count or Blood Panel and it is an essential part of a regular physical.
97.    One of the reasons the court trashed Gloria’s care plan was because Gloria lived upstairs and Mary lived downstairs at 6014 N. Avondale (“White Mary House”).
98.    CT has a two level home with a basement.
99.    The court did not have a problem with the fact that Mary’s bedroom was on the second level and the other living areas were o the first floor of CT’s home.
100.    In 2009, Mary lost 10% of her body weight due to a sore throat that lasted a week before CT dropped Mary off with Gloria.
101.    Mary subsequently required several trips to the emergency room which were not reported to the court.
102.    Gloria recognized that something was very wrong with Mary and took her to the doctor the day Mary was dropped off.
103.    That CT represented to the court that family would care for Mary during the day when she was at work.
104.    That subsequent to the appointment of CT, her daughter Kristen moved out of the home.
105.    That subsequent to the appointment of CT, FT did not want to care for Mary during the day.
106.    That subsequent to the appointment of CT, FT did not in fact care for Mary during the day.
107.    That Dr. Rabin signed and submitted a report to the court indicating Mary was incompetent.
108.    That Dr. Amdur signed and submitted a report to the court indicating Mary was incompetent.
109.    That Mr. Motckya, PsychD signed and submitted a report to the court indicating Mary was icompetent.
110.    That you reviewed these reports and agreed with their accuracy.
Each of the following questions refer to the “Doctor’s Reports” of Amdur, Rabin and Mr. Motckya, PsychD and the “Competency Examination.”
111.    You either knew or should have known at the time Mary wore custom hearing aids.
112.    Mary’s hearing was not tested before the Competency Exams were completed.
113.    You knew or should have known at the time Mary suffered from time to time with hypoglycemia or low blood sugar.
114.    A CBC or Blood Panel was not conducted immediately before any Competency Examination.
115.    That Mary’s blood pressure was never check before any competency exam.
116.    That in derogation of CT’s care plan, Mary had been put in “adult day care” for low functioning adults.
117.    That while Mary was in “adult day care” she could have been living with Gloria in her own home.
118.    That prior to this, Mary wrote checks, was involved in the neighborhood gardening club, walker around her neighborhood nearly every day, walked to and from her doctor’s office and was very involved with her community.
119.    That Mary is now isolated with limited phone calls and visits from family.
120.    That you claim that Mary is upset by Gloria when in fact Mary is upset when Gloria is around because she wants to go home.
121.    That you claim Mary is upset by Gloria when in fact Mary asks Gloria to get her an attorney so she can go home.
122.    You only saw Mary only a few times per year before summer of 2009.
123.    You only filed a Petition for Guardianship because Mary filed a Petition for a Protective Order for wrongfully withdrawing $4,000 from her Pullman bank account.
124.    That you drilled out Mary’s safe deposit box at Pullman Bank and removed gold and silver coins from the box without reporting it on any inventory filed with the court.
125.    That Gloria was also listed as a joint owner of the safe deposit box.
126.    That you have been told that valuables amounting to an estimated $1 million  were found missing from the safe deposit box.
127.    That the GAL’s have not investigated the missing contents.
128.    That you have not informed the Probate Court that you drilled out a safe deposit box owned by Gloria without her permission and removed all the contents therein.
129.    That you have not informed the Probate Court that you drilled out Gloria’s Chase safe deposit box without her permission and removed all the contents therein.
130.    That the contents of Gloria’s safe deposit box was approximately $5,000.
131.    That you have not obtained the records from Pullman (now US Bank) regarding the drilling of Mary and Gloria’s safe deposit box and provided them to the court.
132.    That you have not obtained the records from Chase regarding the drilling out of Gloria’s safe deposit box and provided them to the court.
133.    That you believe you are the Successor Trustee (“ST”) in the Mary G. Sykes Trust dated 2005(“Mary’s Trust”), when in fact you are not because Mary’s personal care physician, Dr. Patel would not sign a certificate of incompetency.
134.    That Mary’s Trust names Mary as the initial Trustee and also the Trustor which violates the Statue of Uses and renders the entire Trust document invalid.
135.    That KD and Gloria have repeatedly informed the GAL’s that Mary’s Trust is invalid because it violates the Statue of Uses.
136.    That you filed an eviction proceeding against Gloria based upon your position as ST under Mary’s Trust knowing that this trust was invalid for violating the Statue of Uses.
137.    Because you were not in fact the ST of Mary’s Trust, the eviction was wrongful.
138.    Your wrongful eviction action against Gloria has created substantial liability upon the Estate of Mary Sykes.
139.    You also turned off the gas for the White Mary House where Gloria was living in 2010, which in fact violated the CRLTO.
140.    Because you violated the CRLTO, you have brought upon the Estate a possible violation fine of $200 to $500 per day.
141.    Because you violated the CRLTO for several months, CT has brought upon the Estate a possible violation totaling more than $5,000.

142.    Because you violated the CRLTO for several months, CT has brought upon the Estate a possible violation totaling more than $10,000
143.    The GAL’s should have filed a Petition for your Removal for shutting off the gas where Gloria was living based upon these violations of the CRLTO creating massive liability to the Estate.
144.    Because AS and CF failed to remove CT for wilfully violating the CRLTO, they should have been removed as GAL’s.
145.    You are aware, In winter of 2010, PS called Chase, Gloria’s mortgage holder and told Chase the Brown Gloria House was abandoned.
146.    PS convinced Chase to “secure the property” while in fact, they trashed it.
147.    Gloria arrived home one day to find herself locked out of the Brown Gloria House, her security cameras were disabled and the security system disabled and tampered with.
148.    This is clearly inconsistent with “securing a home.”
149.    Gloria arrived home to also find that interior walls in her Brown Gloria House were trashed, rendering the property completely uninhabitable–well beyond any remaining mold remediation.
150.    Gloria arrived home one day to find all of the furnishings remaining in her brown home were put in the snow behind her home.
151.    When Gloria’s home was locked and trashed, the GAL’s were promptly informed and failed to investigate.
152.    The GAL’s have told the Probate Court the Estate has a valuable interest in the Brown Gloria House and it should be partitioned.
153.    The prior statement is in fact a complete fabrication because the GAL’s have been informed repeatedly that Gloria owned the Brown Gloria House and Gloria only put Mary G on title as a joint owner as a testamentary convenience.
154.    That all the Sykes family members that should have been listed in Exhibit A to the Petition for Guardianship, except you, agree that the Brown Gloria House is Gloria’s and the White Mary House is Mary’s.
155.    That Gloria paid the mortgages on both homes for approximately ten+ years.
156.    That you were told repeatedly Mary’s income for ten+ years was approximately $1900 per month which was insufficient for her to pay her $1000 per month mortgage, plus utilities, clothing and other expenses.
157.    The GAL’s failed to investigate the severe destruction of the Brown Gloria House because they, as well as PS, desired to ensure Gloria was rendered utterly homeless for the purpose of intimidation.

158.    The GAL’s failed to investigate the severe destruction of the Brown Gloria House because they, as well as PS, desired to ensure Gloria was rendered utterly homeless for the purpose of intimidation.
159.    The GAL’s failed to investigate the severe destruction of the Brown Gloria House because they, as well as PS, were operating in a wired courtroom.
160.    The GAL’s failed for file a Petition to Remove Carolyn for violating the RLTO because they were operating in a wired courtroom.
161.    On May 11, 2012, you informed the Probate Court that Mary’s $1 million in gold coins was “Gloria’s fiction.”
162.    At that time, you did not inform the Probate Court how sister Yolanda could confirm Mary’s ownership of the coins and how they were in the safe deposit box before CT drilled it out.
163.    At that time, you did not inform the Probate Court how sister Josephine could confirm Mary’s ownership of the coins and how they were in the safe deposit box before CT drilled it out.
164.    At that time, you forgot to inform the Probate Court how sister Yolanda could confirm Mary’s ownership of the coins and how they were in the safe deposit box before CT drilled it out.
165.    At that time, you forgot to inform the Probate Court how sister Josephine could confirm Mary’s ownership of the coins and how they were in the safe deposit box before CT drilled it out.
166.    That the GAL’s have not conducted a complete and independent asset search of your accounts or all accounts you control.
167.    That the GAL’s have not conducted a complete and independent asset search for FT’s accounts or all accounts he controls.
168.    That Mary wrote in her own handwriting (“Mary’s Directions) in Sept. 2009 that she wanted an attorney and wanted to live at home until she died.
169.    That you told the Probate Court that Mary’s Directions were dictated to her by someone else and she did not know what she was writing and this was a false statement
170.    That videos were posted on youtube.com and Vimeo.com which firmly confirm Mary’s Directions (“Videos”).
171.    Those Videos show Mary writing once again she wanted to live in her own home until she died and to have Gloria and Carolyn care for her there.
172.    You are aware that Gloria holds the last valid and enforceable Power of Attorney for Health Care from Mary. (The “POA”)
173.    This original POA document was produced in court in December of 2009 and the court ignored it.
174.    You initially told the court that this original POA document was a fake.
175.    When it shown to you and the court and it was determined it was an original and valid, Judge Connors summarily invalidated the document, without findings or a hearing.
176.    Judge Connors quipped it had to have been produced sooner–yet Gloria had mentioned it to her in several prior court status hearings and Gloria’s requests to effectuate this document were ignored.
177.    That filing a Motion to Disqualify JMD for merely notarizing a document is improper and you were aware of this at the time, but you instructed your counsel otherwise.
178.    That the notary clause in the document only stated the person appearing before the notary was in fact known to the notary to be that person and nothing more.
179.    That the GAL’s misrepresented to the court that JMD would be used to testify to show Mary’s competence or incompetence in August 2008.

180.    That JMD was never called to testify regarding the competence level of Mary.
181.    That the issues regarding the Lumberman’s funds disbursing payment in August 2008 (“Lumberman’s Settlement) are full and final and may not be attacked in any court of law.
182.    That 735 ILCS § 1401 provides in its pertinent part that an attack on a judgment must be brought within 2 years of the date of entry of judgment and therefore the Lumberman’s Settlement may no longer be attacked.
183.    That Gloria’s funds were illegally frozen in 2009, and the wrongful freeze continued to the date of this pleading.
184.    That in August of 2012 the GAL’s should have asked the court to unfreeze all of Gloria’s funds because the time to attack the Lumberman’s Settlement had passed.
185.    That in Dec 2009, HW wrongfully caused all of Gloria’s funds at Chase to be wrongfully frozen, rendering her penniless for more than a week.
186.    That the freezing of all of Gloria’s accounts in Dec 2009 in excess of the Order entered by the court was wrongful, bringing substantial liability upon the Estate.
187.    That the freezing of all of Gloria’s accounts in Dec 2009 should have created cause for the GAL’s to remove CT as plenary guarding for the wrongful actions of her counsel.
188.    That a guardian is legally responsible for the wrongful actions of her counsel.
189.    That the mortgage on Gloria’s Brown House of approx. $200,000 is likely more than the home is worth.
190.    That it is not worth partitioning this house.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

_______________________________
Cynthia Farenga, Guardian ad Litem

Prepared By:
Name: Ms. Cynthia Farenga,
One of two Guardians Ad Litem for Mary Sykes
Atty No. ___________
1601 Sherman Ave # 200
Evanston, IL 60201
847-475-1300

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Aug 1, 2012 7:47 PM
To: GLORIA Jean SYKES , Lucinda , NASGA , “joanne@denisonlaw.com” , Tim Lahrman NASGA , matt senator kirk , LUCIUS VERENUS , states attorney , Sherrif Dart , Elaine NAsga
Cc: scott evans , “k_bakken@att.net” , Chicago Tribune , “savage@suntimes.com”
Subject: Re: Joanne Denison’s Contrived “Motion to Dismiss/Non Suit for Lack of Sodini Jurisdiction”