And Death appears to be the Only way Out…….

Dear Readers;

Here is an article submitted by anonymous donor:

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.


From Atty Kenneth Ditkowsky–where is the First Amendment when you Need it?

From the Boone Tavern, Berea College
As children were admonished “TRUTH, JUSTICE, & THE AMERICAN WAY”  however, all bets are off when we there is a senior citizen in sight who can be abused or exploited by certain  favored persons appointed by the Courts as guardians/guardians ad litem etc.     Even an attorney, such as yours truly cannot escape the wrath if he speaks out.
On September 6/7 2012  I will be tried on disciplinary charges by the Illinois ARDC.    I am charged with exercising my First Amendment Rights, associating with persons who opposed the interests of Cynthia Farenga, Adam Stern, Peter Schmiedel and objecting to the fact that for three years the Circuit Court of Cook County has been acting without jurisdiction.     It appears that the aforementioned lawyers had neglected to vest the Court with jurisdiction ( In re: Sodini – citation omitted) by following certain mandatory criterion required by the State of Illinois prior to depriving a senior citizen of her liberty, her property, and civil rights.      It further appears that I committed the heinous crime of speaking in public in writing words and phrases that were critical of Ms. Farenga, Mr.  Stern, Peter Schmiedel and the presiding  Judge who appears to have been conducting proceedings in the courthouse without jurisdiction for three years.
The foregoing complaint will be addressed, but,  a new complaint has arisen.     The Illinois Supreme Court delegated to the Illinois ARDC the duty to root out ‘ethically challenged’ lawyers and it is supposed to stand as a beacon of honesty and legal propriety.    In reviewing my prosecution it occurred to me that I have a Himmel[1] responsibility  to report some grossly improper conduct on the part of the ARDC lawyers who are conducting my prosecution.   
Charge 1:    Improper conduct toward a witness.     Mary’s “Other Daughter” (“OD”) daughter is a key witness and the person who is expected to testify that the mandatory statutory notices were not provided to the near (close) relatives of Mary Sykes as is mandated by statute.    In particular,  the mandatory venue was ignored, the petition filed faulty as it did not disclose the people who were required to be disclosed, the mandatory 14 day written notice was ignored,  and Mary’s protections mandated by statute were ignored.     After Mary’s other daughter had been disclosed, the ARDC attorney, Ms. Lea Black,  sought to take the discovery deposition of that daughter.    A ridiculous dispute occurred that I characterize as grossly inappropriate.     The net was Mary’s other daughter and Ms. Black, after some unpleasant conversations did not meet so that the other daughter’s deposition could be taken.       As is pretty typical for these Elder Abuse/Financial Exploitation  cases  Ms. Black ignored the more conventional method of compelling an independent witness (not a party) to appear.   She filed a motion to bar me from calling Ms. Sykes as a witness.     The Disciplinary Panel denied her motion; however, but did not erase the gross defamation on the American Judicial System or the public demonstration of unfairness.
Charge 2:    Denial of an Accused a fact witness.        It is axiomatic  (Supreme Court Rule 191) that affidavits (sworn documents) must be signed by someone who has knowledge of the facts contained in the affidavit.     ARDC attorney , Ms. Lea Black,  was permitted by the ARDC panel to verify documents required by law to be verified, ergo,  she represented that she has personal knowledge of the facts (and can testify to them).     Ms. Black thus became a person who was named on my witness list.      The ARDC filed a motion to bar me from calling Ms. Black as a witness.    The ARDC panel denied the motion, but could not erase the stain and the defamation of the Illinois justice system.
Charge 3.     Attempt to bar public records key to the defense of these proceedings from being produced at trial.
If the First Amendment to the United States Constitution is revoked or suspended for these disciplinary proceedings the issue in this case is very simple.    Does the record of the Circuit Court in In re:  Mary Sykes 09 P 4585 contain a petition that discloses the ‘near’ or ‘close’  relatives of Mary Sykes – i.e. her two siblings and her two daughters.     (It does not).     Did the Clerk of the Circuit Court when the case was filed set a date for hearing thirty days after the filing?  (She did not).    Did the notice of hearing (in writing) get served on the other daughter and Mary’s two siblings 14 days prior to the date of the hearing?  (It was not).    Is there some evidence of this service, if any?   (there was  not).      (The panel has limited the number of Requests to Admit that I can serve on the ARDC so that method provided by the Supreme Court of Illinois to address all these key facts is not open).       Interestingly, the States Attorney of Cook County has filed a petition to quash my subpoena of the Clerk of the Circuit Court.     The panel has not ruled on this outrageous motion as of August 29, 2012.       The America Justice System was unique in that a defendant has always been afforded the opportunity fully defend his rights, privileges and immunities.     The States Attorney (of Cook County) is one of the Judicial Officers charged with protecting the rights of citizens, yet she appears in this Disciplinary case to thwart the efforts of the defense.  
It is respectfully submitted that when Circuit Court Records are examined in the Sykes case and the Petition filed by Mary Sykes for a protective order against the person appointed as plenary guardian surfaces, along with the perfidy that other daughter has had to endure it will be more than appropriate to refer to the Sykes case and the related cases as the “Son of Greylord!”         Citizens have filed complaints to the ARDC concerning Farenga and Stern.     It is my understanding that Judge Connors has been the subject of at least one Judicial Inquiry Board complaint in relation to this Sykes case.    HOWEVER,  the ARDC in setting its example of the proper for lawyers has not prosecuted either Farenga or Stern.      The conduct out lined supra that I charge has occurred and is of record in my disciplinary case is worthy of investigation and inquiry   — Unless, last night the concept of Due Process, Civil Rights, and Fairness were abrogated the charges that I make are very serious.

[1]   Mr. Himmel was a lawyer who was disciplined by the ARDC for not reporting a ‘bad action’ on the part of a brother lawyer.

Deed in Trust–Clear violation of Statute of Uses

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.

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

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.

Appeal of the Disqualification of JoAnne Denison

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.


take care and have a great day.

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
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:
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
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
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:
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-
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.
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
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
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

From Ken Ditkowsky–His Response to a Motion to Quash his Subpoena for the Trial Court Records

Dear Readers;

Today I found out that while Atty Ditkowsky had served a Subpoena on the Clerk of Court for a variety of pleadings in the Sykes case (most of which are missing regardless), it turns out that the Attorney General–that’s right, the office that taxpayers pay to protect our consumer rights and civil liberties, constitutional and due process rights–has filed a Motion to Quash the Subpoena.

How incredible and unfair is that?  Just whom and what cabal is the IAG’s offices protecting?  And where was the IAG during the Greylord years when corruption was open, rampant and often complained about in the Cook County Court system?

Well, as KDD and I have suspected, Greylord seems to have had kittens.  And those kittens have morphed into mountain lions, now devouring the just and ethical attorneys and their clients out there.

Read on for more and more questions about the Sykes Probate case.



In the Matter of:                    )
) Commission No. 2012 PR 00014
Attorney-Respondent,            )
No. 642754        )


Now comes Kenneth Ditkowsky, Respondent herein, and in response to the Motion to Quash Subpoena filed on behalf of Dorothy Brown, Clerk of the Circuit Court, states as follows
1) That the respondent did not initiate this litigation, and in fact has complained that the Administrator did little or no investigation prior to filing this disciplinary complaint and therefore, when all the facts are before this panel the respondent will be vindicated.
2) That a subpoena fee was mailed to the Clerk of the Circuit Court.   A copy of the covering letter and the check are attached hereto and made part hereof and incorporated by reference.    A verified certificate of mailing is attached.
3)  That the respondent is not a party to the cases that the records were subpoenaed and has not filed any appearance therein.
4)  That the Administrator has made averments that in words and phrases accused the respondent of making untrue statements concerning persons who do have relations to the three cases.    In particular, the Administrator has accused the respondent of defaming a Circuit Court Judge (or judges), two guardian ad litem, etc.   The discovery allowed by this panel was limited.   The respondent was denied the opportunity to have interrogatories answered by the Administrator, the number of Requests to Admit was limited,  the Answers to the Request to Admit were allowed to be verified by an attorney for the ARDC who had no personal knowledge of the files or the transaction, but was allowed to respond based upon an investigation.   The 214 compliance however revealed no investigation being done.
5)   That the issues in this disciplinary proceeding require the records of the Circuit Court to be presented to the panel as the respondent’s defense is dependent upon them.    To be specific, if the drafter of the ARDC petition herein had examined the records of the Circuit Court the following documents would have been produced by the Administrator during discovery:
a) A verified Petition for the Appointment of a Guardian and to find Mary Sykes incompetent.   This verified petition would have disclosed the correct venue for Mary Sykes, the names of near (close) relatives of Mary Sykes  (i.e. her two daughters and her two adult siblings).   The file documents would have shown the mandatory ( use of the word ‘shall’ in the statute) setting of a date, time and place for hearing within 30 days of the filing.    (No such petition complying with the statute was produced = and therefore the records of the Circuit Court to be produced with either show the jurisdictional compliance with the Statute or not.   The respondent used a subpoena to require the Clerk of the Court to bring in the Court file so that the panel can see that no such Petition is of record).  (See In re: Sodini 527 NE2d 536, 172 Ill App2d 1055.)

b) Certificates of mailing or other evidence of service of a 14 day written notice on the the ‘near’ (close) relatives of Mary Sykes of the service of actual written notice being served upon them in a timely manner.     The Administrator’s production does not show any certificates of mailing or proof of the service of the jurisdictional notices on Gloria Sykes or the two siblings of Mary Sykes).     The requirement is jurisdictional and therefore, if 5 (a) and/or 5 (b) are not in the court record the Circuit Court of Cook County has been acting – and continues to act – without jurisdiction.    A Court acting without jurisdiction cannot engage or appoint judicial officials.    (See In re: Sodini 527 NE2d 536, 172 Ill App2d 1055)

c) evidence of a CCP 211 (doctor’s report or certificate of incompetency)  being filed 10 days prior to date that the Clerk set the case for hearing.   The use of the word ‘shall’ makes this provision mandatory.    Again, no such material was furnished in the Administrators 214 production.

d) Evidence of a timely verified petition for the imposition of an injunction upon Gloria Sykes’ property.    NO such petition was provided by the ARDC in its 214 production.

e) Evidence of a bond being ordered and or filed to protect Gloria Sykes’ (and Mary Sykes’) interest in the event that the injunction entered by the Circuit Court would be inappropriate.   The bond would reimburse Sykes for any injury that occurred.     The ARDC did not provide such information.   However, the Court record including the pleadings will demonstrate one way or another if the statutory (jurisdictional) provisions were complied.

f)  Evidence of the plenary guardian complying with the provisions of the Probate Act providing for the issuance of citations.    The Rule 214 production does not demonstrate a timely petition, service on Gloria Sykes, the jurisdictional requirements being met.   Respondent is charged with making false charges, but, an examination of the Circuit Court Record will demonstrate that the citation requirements were not met and an order was entered by Judge Stuart that ‘froze’ Ms. Sykes’ assets located in the State of Indiana.

g) The records in Lumberman vs. Sykes are requested to demonstrate the a final order was entered in that case and no 735 ILCS 5/2 -1401 Petition was ever filed.     The production by the ARDC did not provide any such materials or any documentations or material that would exempt the proceeds of the said Lumberman judgement from Constitutional (and jurisdictional) protection of Full Faith and Credit.  Testimony of Gloria Sykes and adverse testimony will reveal that Judge Connors issued an injunction against the use of these funds, froze these funds and made some unusual statements concerning these funds.

h) The records of the Petition for an Order of Protection.    These records = also missing from the ARDC production = are essential to show that Mary Sykes with the aid of Court employed personnel filed a Petition for a protective order against the applicant to be appointed plenary guardian.  The said petition was somehow consolidated with the petition for the appointment of the plenary guardian and never heard.

i) the transcripts of proceedings filed and which were part of the record of the Appellate Court in relation to various appeals filed herein provide insight into the nature and conduct of the Court proceedings presided upon by Judge Connors and others.   These transcripts are believed to (and do) contain statements by Mary Sykes as to desiring a lawyer, objecting to the proceedings and other incidentals that would trigger the application of 11a-10 of the probate Act.    These transcripts will further demonstrate the unusual nature of the Circuit Court proceedings and some very unusual statements by the presiding judge.    The ARDC has not produced copies of these transcripts as part of its 214 compliance.

j) Other documents that bear on the issue of whether or not the respondent had justification in exercising his First Amendment Rights.

6)  The charges made by the Administrator are respectfully submitted to be in derogation of the First Amendment to the United States constitution, Article One of the Illinois Constitution, 42 USCA 1983, and 735 ILCS 110/ et seq.    That said, to defend the charges the respondent has to prove a negative and can do so only with the official records of the Circuit Court of Cook County before the panel.   As Ms. Sykes has filed a number of appeals the records that are under discussion have been complied for transmittal to the Appellate Court of Illinois and therefore, should be readily available for use in these proceedings.   The respondent similarly filed a successful appeal and paid for and had transmitted to the Appellate Court  a portion of the record.   Thus, as the Appellate Court has returned these records to the Circuit Court (in the Sykes case) the Clerk should have little problem in transmitting the complied records to this panel.
7) The necessity of these records is illustrated by a recent Evidence Deposition of Justice Connors.   The Administrator’s attorney asked the Judge if the respondent had made an admission.    The transcript of the proceedings made it very clear that no admission had been made.    In particular, Judge Connors asked if respondent had mailed a copy of an appearance to Dr. Patel.   Ms. Farenga popped up and was recorded as saying ” Yes, your honor”   Ms. Farenga does not represent or speak for the respondent and Ms. Farenga’s statement may be an admission on her part, but not on the part of the respondent.
8) That in answers to the Request to Admit, basic inquiry was made as to the record.   For instance, to declare Mary Sykes an incompetent person the petitioner had to prove such fact by ‘clear and convincing evidence.’    This would require a hearing on the subject.  One of the issues that is going to have to be addressed is going to concern this hearing.   Only the Administrator appears to believe that a hearing occurred.   The court record that was subpoenaed and which is the subject of the motion to quash will resolve this situation and disprove the Administrators response to a Request to Admit.
9)  Stripped to its basics this disciplinary proceeding involves the issue of whether or not attorneys are to be deprived of their First Amendment Rights.   Respondent raised this issue in his initial Motion to Dismiss and this panel denied the Motion.   Therefore, this respondent has to prove that he had good cause for communicating to law enforcement, his clients and the ‘judicial officials’ that they were acting illegally and without jurisdiction.    It absolutely impossible to prove a negative and, if the records upon which the allegations that the Administrator’s complaint is based are denied the respondent and he cannot obtain them, he will denied due process.
10)  A Court must have jurisdiction to have the power to interfere in people’s lives in the United States of America.    It may be an embarrassment and may not be politically correct, but it is an obligation of citizenship for all citizens to speak out as to injustice and wrongful action.    The respondent must be given the right to defend himself from the charges of the Administrator and without the records subpoenaed the Respondent is denied due process.
Wherefore the respondent objects to the Motion to Quash and respectfully requests that it be denied.
Respectfully Submitted,

Kenneth K. Ditkowsky

Pro Se
5940 West Touhy Avenue, Suite 230
Niles, Illinois 60714

Revised Report to the Court

Dear Readers;

Please note the below Report to the Court includes the following updated information:

1) the fact that when the court orders were made available, the one pertaining to jurisdiction had scratch outs on it and had been clearly tampered with after Gloria initialed the first order; and,

2) the testimony of Judge Connors where Ken got her to admit she knew all about Sodini and was aware of the strict notice procedures prior to the appointment of Carolyn!


Also, please don’t forget that there is a difference between a “Report to the Court” and a “Bystander’s Report”.  A Bystander’s Report is generally used where you can’t get a transcript.  A Report to the Court is generally used when you were not able to relay important information to the court during a hearing or motion call (the otherside was given an unfair talking advantage) and/or important facts or discussions later arose.  A Report to the Court is to set the matter fairly before the court.

Attorney Code: pro se


In Re the Estate of

Mary G. Sykes,
A disabled person

Case No.: 09 P 4858

Hon. Jane Louise Stuart


To: See attached service list:

Please take notice, that on ______________, 20___, the undersigned, Gloria J. Sykes, interested person and daughter of Mary G. Sykes above, has herewith filed at the Richard J Daley Center, 50 W. Washington St,  Chicago, Illinois, the following REPORT TO COURT, and true and correct copes of which are attached hereto and served upon you.


Gloria J. Sykes,
Daughter to Mary G. Sykes

Prepared By:
Gloria J. Sykes
Daughter and Interested Party
Estate of Mary Sykes
6016 N. Avondale Ave.
Chicago, IL 60631
Phone: 773-330-9910
email:                                         Attorney Code # Pro Se


In Re the Estate of

Mary G. Sykes,
A disabled person

Case No.: 09 P 4858

Hon. Jane Louise Stuart


NOW COMES Gloria J. Sykes (“Gloria”), daughter and interested party in the above proceeding and respondent to a Motion for a Petition to Partition and a Motion to Set Aside an August 2008 Apportionment Order in the above proceeding, (“Gloria”) as it relates to the above Guardianship Estate of  Mary G. Sykes (“Mary”) filing this Report pro se,  and notes that numerous times during the August 16, 2012 hearing the attorneys present, namely, Mr. Adam Stern, Guardian Ad Litem (“GAL Stern”) and Attorney Peter Schmeidel, counsel for the Plenary Guardian Carolyn Toerpe, (“Atty Schmeidel”) repeatedly made blatantly false and misleading statements to the court to deliberately mislead, misinform and manipulate the truth of the matters at issue so as to severely impede and obstruct the cause of justice, namely, these attorneys stated: 1) that Gloria’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (Sodini) was heard and denied by the court numerous times; 2) the issue of Jurisdiction (Sodini) had been argued and decided on the merits by the Illinois Court of Appeals when in fact it had not been; and 3) Gloria’s Witnesses and Testimony to be heard in relation to her Probate Proceeding have been stricken by prior order of court when in fact they have not and 4) the order pertaining to the issue of lack of jurisdiction over the Respondent had been crossed out and different verbiage inserted AFTER Gloria had initialed it.

When the undersigned repeated attempted to bring this to the attention of the court, she was given “60 seconds to explain”, and then shushed up or told by the court to “keep silent” while the opposing attorneys went on and on with the their misleading and factually incorrect statements, making the hearing a waste of everyone’s time and resources.

The facts relating to this Report are as follows:


1.    On August 16, 2012, between 2:00 pm and 4:30 pm, a hearing was to be held concerning invalidating the Lumberman’s apportionment agreement pertaining to insurance proceeds emanating from property damaged which was held as joint tenants between Mary and Gloria located at 6014 N. Avondale Ave. in Chicago, Illinois.  While the entire family agrees (except for the Plenary Guardian) that this house fully and rightfully belongs to Gloria, and Mary’s name was added as a testamentary convenience, the plenary guardian, Carolyn Toerpe, has filed, and this court has wrongfully entertained, a Motion for Partition AND a Motion to invalidate an Apportionment Agreement and Order dating back to August 2008.
2.    The time to attack a judgement and a court order is two (2) years as set forth in § 1401 of the Illinois Probate Code.
3.    In August of 2010 during a hearing, Judge Connors said she did not have to follow Illinois procedure and she could invalidate another courts’ judgements–referring to this court order.  Judge Connors said she did not have to follow § 1401 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure relating to the attack upon a judgment.
4.    Dr. Shaw, accordingly, was called to testify on August 16, 2012 as a continuing witness in these matters.  Gloria was to cross examine his testimony–which she did.
5.    Prior to the testimony of Dr. Shaw, Gloria brought an Emergency Motion to Dismiss the above proceeding for lack of jurisdiction under the Sodini case.
6.     The court heard argument, first asking Adam Stern, Guardian ad Litem as to his comments on the motion and he replied that the court had heard this matter “numerous times” and denied any lack of jurisdiction “numerous times.”
7.    Then court then asked Peter Schmeidel, attorney for the Plenary Guardian as to his comments on the motion, and he agreed with Attorney Stern that not only had the court heard this matter “numerous times” and denied any lack of jurisdiction “numerous time” BUT he even argued it on appeal and it was denied by the appellate court–when in fact the case had been dismissed under Rule 341 for failure to comply with margins and length and no oral arguments were ever heard. (Exhibit E, hereto, Order Dismissing appeal 10-0808 on section 341 compliance).
8.    Gloria repeatedly tried to make her argument that both were lying, there are no court orders that any Motions to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction were heard or were ever denied, that her appeal was dismissed not on the merits thereof, but for brief formatting errors (section 341 compliance)–but the court cut her off quickly each time she started to speak, telling her to shush up and “not speak”.
9.    During this same proceeding before, during and after the testimony of Dr. Shaw, Peter Schmeidel made continuing comments that “Gloria was barred by court order to present her witnesses and testimony” when in fact that was not true.
10.    Gloria’s attorney friend, JoAnne Denison (Attorney Denison), then went downstairs to the Probate Files records office and requested and obtained copies of all court orders dating from January of 2011 to present, paid $21.75, obtained a receipt, and handed it to Gloria who then presented it to the court, challenging Peter Schmeidel AND GAL Adam Stern to find copies of the court orders they asserted to the court existed regarding striking Gloria’s witnesses and exhibits and the numerous denials of Motions to Dismiss based upon lack of Jurisdiction (Sodini notices) . (Exhibit A, hereto, together with time stamped receipt).
11.    Attorney Denison in the hall outside the court, again challenged the two attorneys and both refused her challenge to find the court orders Schmeidel and Stern told the court existed.  Atty Stern claimed he would find the order barring Gloria’s witnesses and testimony and email it the next day.  In the orders he produced, no where in these orders did it say Gloria’s witnesses and exhibits would be barred, it only said that Carolyn could put on her case on a date certain.  Further, the court order of February 22, 2012 stating the parties had until March 30, 2012 did not say the items had to be produced or banned.  In addition, Gloria emailed all of these items to Atty Schmeidel and GAL’s Stern and Farenga prior to March 30, 2012.  Gloria could not be in court on Mar. 30, 2012, but she let all the attorneys know in advance and none of the attorneys brought up the fact she had in fact emailed them copies of her subpoenas–a fact in and of itself that was seriously misleading to the court.
12.    In addition, the court orders stated Atty Schmeidel had to serve Gloria with copies of the court orders, but there is no copy of anything he was supposed to mail or email to her filed together with a timely Certificate of Service and Gloria says they were never in fact mailed or emailed to her.
13.    Finally, when the undersigned returned the next day to pick up her court orders, it was evident that one of them had been changed after the fact and had been double stamped by the court.  The undersigned had NOT in fact agreed that the “numerous” court orders regarding jurisdiction occurred before Judge Stuart had the case.  In fact, in the listing of court orders from the period of July 2009 to the end of 2010 when Connors had the case do not reflect any motions based upon Sodini being heard or decided.  Jurisdictions might have been brought up in the court, but it was not until 2011 that Atty Ditkowsky discovered the Sodini case and started to inform the GAL’s that the case lacked jurisdiction based upon Sodini.  It is believe that both the GAL’s and Judge Connors knew of the strict requirements of Sodini at the very inception of the case, and most certainly by December 2009 when Carolyn Toerpe was appointed.  This fact was brought up by Ken Ditkowsky during his recent deposition of Judge Connors.  She admitted she knew of Sodini and she knew that written notice had to be served by the petitioner advising adult siblings and children of the date, time and place of any hearing to appoint a guardian 14 days in advance–a procedure which was never done.

Ms. Gloria Sykes also respectfully requests that a hearing be promptly set on her Motion to Dismiss/NonSuit for lack of Jurisdiction because no Soldini notices were ever served upon Mary’s elderly sisters, Josephine and Yolanda, nor were they served upon Gloria, and that GAL Stern be directed to subpoena Josephine to court because she is currently afraid if she “takes the wrong side” like Yolanda, Gloria and numerous other family members the GAL’s will not let her see Mary again.

Because it is believed that Adam Stern, Cynthia Farenga and Carolyn Toerpe’s attorneys have interferred with the production of transcripts in the above case (someone is doing this, because they simply cannot be ordered and transcribed to date), a bystander’s report as to the above is attached hereto witnesses by Attorney Denison, Ms. Gloria Sykes and Mr. Scott Evans in support of this motion. (Exhibit C, hereto).

It is further noted that approximately 80% of the court’s file is missing, including 13 large volumes of appellate record which were sent back to the trial court in March 2012.  (Exhibit D, hereto, Table of Missing pleadings, transcripts and orders).  It is respectfully requested that an order be issued requiring all attorneys (including Ms. Denison and Mr. Ditkowsky) meet with their files and records and the entire file be reconstructed and then imaged by Files Department).  Much injustice is being done in this case because the file has been professionally “cleansed.”  While the attorneys always say it is Gloria, the reality is, Gloria is helping with a blog located at where all transcripts and records are published. So if Gloria is helping and participating there and the blog is publishing the pleadings, transcripts and orders, it makes no sense to accuse her.


Gloria Sykes, Daughter of Respondent
Pro Se
Prepared By:
Gloria J Sykes, Pro Se
6014 N Avondale Ave
Chicago, IL 60631
ph 733-910-3310
email                                                     CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned herewith certifies that a copy of the foregoing Pleading entitled REPORT TO COURT were served upon the following parties as noted on this _____ day of _______________, 2012


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

Mr. Peter Schmeidel
Fischel and Kahn Ltd
190 S. LaSalle St, Ste 2830
Chicago, IL 60603
via email and first class mail, postage prepaid

Ms. Cynthia Farenga
1601 Sherman Ave, #200
Evanston, IL 60201 via email and first class mail, postage prepaid


From Ken Ditkowsky, a summary of the case

For a summary of the case–

The starting point in any legal case is the statute.   The case law is all very interesting, but, to understand what you are doing you have to go to the statute.    The Statute that you have to address is 735 ILCS 5/11a – 1 et seq.
  This is interestingly enough exactly how I started with Judge Connors in my cross examination of her.     The statute is either mandatory or permissive.    A permissive statute is one in which the judge has some discretion.    For instance, if the statute states that a certain act ‘may’ or ‘will” be completed by a certain day the Judge and the Court system have the right to set it for another day that is reasonable.    However, if the statute uses the word ‘shall’ the legislative mandate and delegation to the Court is specific.     If the statute for instance says that a particular hearing “shall” set a place and time for hearing with 30 days of the filing of the incompetency petition   (11a -10) that is mandatory.    Thus, on the 40th day without this criterion being met, Judge Connors noticed that the Petition was defective and the CCP 211 was not filed.    What is the effect of it?
If we apply a liberal interpretation of the statute, this does not mean that the hearing had to be held on that date – it means that the time and place had to be set.    This does not mean that there could be no continuances.   It meant that as long as a time and place was mentioned the matter could be continued.
Do not Jump!     Carolyn was appointed as a temporary guardian.    By statute this is a 60 day job.    Thus, 60 days after the appointment Carolyn is once again a peon.       Thus, after approximately 60 days this is a rudderless situation.
As the Court had appointed Guardian ad Litem,  these individuals’ duty was to report to the Court such ‘technicalities’ as lack of jurisdiction, loss of jurisdiction etc.      The statute further provides that the CCP 211 need not be filed with the petition – however, it must be filed at least 10 days prior to the hearing.    This provides some ‘leeway’ for a petitioner to fudge a bit.    Upon examination of the certificate of incompetency might reveal as an example that the respondent appears borderline, but in fact is ****.    This allows a physician to amend and qualify his opinion so it is more accurate.
The Petition was filed @ July 20, 2009.     Even though the statute stated “upon the filing of a petition *** the clerk shall”    No court date was set.    It is very clear why no date was set.     Mr. Waller recognized that your mother was competent and unless a ‘hack’ or a ‘prostitute’ could be obtained to sign a CCP 211 (certificate of incompetency)  the facade could not occur and Mary would not be deprived of her liberty, her property, her civil rights and/or her human rights.
Assuming that a doctor could be found to sign the CCP and the petition required by section 8 could be filed, this petition required that ‘near’ relatives be named and specifically required that adult children and adult siblings who were alive be named.    Again the word ‘shall’ is used.    The Sodini case addresses this principle.    It points out that Section 10 provides the jurisdictional (use of the word shall) that 14 days prior to the hearing the near (I have been referring to them as ‘close”) relatives have been be given written notice.      This was not done so there is no jurisdiction and all the orders of the Circuit Court are VOID.
It is an axiom that Jurisdiction cannot be conferred on the Court, so the issue of waiver is also eliminated, unless, the waiver is in writing or memorialized in some very definite manner.    An ambush such as having everyone in Court for discussion of a ‘care plan’ and them sneaking in an appointment of a plenary guardian is a ‘naked’ Fraud on the Court.     Sodini rejected such an approach and it is hard to conceive of a proper Judge who would participate in such a sham.
The Statutory process is further set out.      The burden of proof that the petition must meet is ‘clear and convincing.’     This is the highest civil standard of proof.    Assuming an unbiased and non-wired Court this means an unbiased judge is strictly limited in the help that he/she can provide the petition.    For instance, Judge Connors statement on August 31, 2012 is totally inappropriate.   Representative Akin’s recent statement is benign compared with Connor’s statement.    Adam Stern’s nomination of Dr. Shaw and Dr. Amdur are equally offensive and clearly in derogation of the Statute.
Section 10o b provides that the Court in its discretion may appoint counsel for the respondent (Mary); however the court ‘shall” appoint counsel on respondent’s request.    The request may be either oral or written.   It would be helpful if you have at your finger tips the ‘chapter and verse’ of Mary’s requesting an attorney and Mr. Shaw telling the Court that he talked to her and she did not want one!   For instance, the record shows that right after Mary was bench served she demanded an attorney be appointed for her and that was refused!
To guaranty that the Civil Rights of the respondent are protected the Statute goes one step further.    The Venue provision of the act again using the word ‘shall’ requires that venue shall be in the county in which the respondent resides.    Your mother resided in DuPage County.    Thus, why are we in Cook County?     Assuming that Naperville is in Cook County,  the statute further says that the respondent has to be served with summons and shall be explained his/her rights.      In the Sykes case the summons was placed with the Sheriff; however knowing that Mary resided in Du Page County (abet against her will) the Sheriff was directed to serve Mary at 6014 N. Avondale, Chicago, Illinois (Cook County).
It is very interesting that neither guardian ad litem appears to have informed Judge Connors of these discrepancies.    From her deposition it appears that Judge Connors was not really interested.     That fact is really troubling.
Now with that background, it is the inescapable conclusion
1)  As there was no proper petition filed, there is a jurisdictional deficiency
2)  As there was no service upon the ‘near’ relatives (also known as close relatives) there is a jurisdictional deficiency.
3)  That as there was no hearing (see docket) there is a jurisdictional deficiency.
This is the primary and first line of inquiry.      The Second line of inquiry goes more to culpability than procedure.      The words TRO, injunction, citation etc are all thrown in the mix as if they all had some magic.      They do not.    Illinois has an Injunction Act.     Generally ‘sua sponde’ injunctions are at the very least ‘bad form!’    In the Sykes case we have a bunch of them.     Similarly probate citations are not favored instruments.     Not only do we have them popping out, but the jurisdictional procedures appear to be lacking.     The activity of the guardian ad litems in regard to the injunctions and citations is very troubling.    The job of the plenary guardian is to muster the financial affairs of the incompetent.     Why are the GALs all over the place going after your assets?      Very suspicious.
I can hardly wait for Ms. Farenga and Mr. Stern to tell us how all of this happened.      It also will be interesting to heard from the GALs how it happens that Ms. Troepe does not deny certain facts and they are publishing to the ARDC and others that we are all liars and misrepresenting when we allege from our own personal knowledge the existence of some valuables that have not been inventoried.
I hope that this quick books view of the  guiding statute is helpful in your presentations.
Ken Ditkowsky

Dear Lucinda–explaining your lack of privilege

Dear Lucinda;

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

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.


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  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.

Altered court orders, fabricating attorneys, the saga continues

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:

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.


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 Atty Ditkowsky–another call for an investigation and the reasons why

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

The ‘Son of Greylord’ is worse than the original.    17 judges went to jail and dozens decided to retire. [More than 50 attorneys went to prison also, and many more surrendered law licenses instead]. The integrity of the Court system was seriously threatened.   Jump forward a decade and take a look on the 18th floor of the Daley Center.     If the Sykes case and some of the similar cases tell us anything, the tell us that if you do not learn your history you may relive it.     Everyone should ask to see the file in Sykes and read the transcripts that were complied and sent to the Appellate Court as  the Court record.   Start with late September and Early Oct.
This is the first act-  Mr. Waller and Ms. Faranga spuriously complain to the Court that Gloria stole 1.3 million dollars.   (This is the settlement from the Gloria’s claim against the Lumberman Insurance company that was approved by Judge Mulhern of Circuit Court over a year previously).     Waller and Faranga and the presiding judge all know that they are in the wrong Court.    If Gloria did anything wrong – which she had not done – the place to Challenge the award was before Judge Mulhern pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2 1401.    This of course was not done by either Waller or Farenga as they would have to demonstrate two major facts:  1) due diligence and 2) a meritorious cause.     They had neither, thus, a probate judge was an easier target.      (When lawyers such as appointed GALs et al. are frugal with the truth – we call it ‘selling the judge.’)
The judge entered a restraining order totally ignoring the fact that the Lumberman judgment was entitled to ‘full faith and credit” and ambush injunctions are frowned upon by the Constitution.
JoAnne this is embarassing!    The material that I am going through is what the Chicago Public Schools teach in 2nd grade civics.    Justice Sotomeyer in the Jarman case (speaking fof the US Supreme Court) suggested that lawyers and judges are presumed to know the law.    This radical concept is refuted when your read the Sykes case.
The ‘sua sponte‘ illegal injunction was issued without bond, without a proper petition, and without notice or any of the legal criterion required.    No matter a week later Ms. Farenga on ‘information and belief’  filed a scurrilous petition claiming that Gloria stole 1.3 million dollars.     This was the vehicle for interfering with Gloria’s mortgage payments and her use of her money.     The record also reveals that Gloria was barred from making repairs to her home.    As the home was in joint tenancy,  Ms. Farenga’s actions should be considered as a ‘breach of her fiduciary relationship’ to Mary, and intentional interference with Gloria’s property.     The order entered by the judge directed ‘waste’ to occur and the interest of Mary to be damages and/or destroyed.     Imagine this!    A judge ordering the destruction of the ward’s property!
By comparison that activity was tame.     We have numerous instances in which a Judge knowing (or should know) that she had no jurisdiction generating void orders – or more appropriately stated – acting in concert with ***** to deny Mary Sykes her liberty, her property, her civil and human rights.   Take a gander at 42 USCA 1983.     The lack of jurisdiction – presumed to be known by the Judge and the guardians obviates any claim of immunity.     It is expected that the Federal Court will say that the judge has immunity but,  Justice Sotomeyer’s decision in Jerman is to the contrary.   Expect an exception to the presumption –
Just for the record:    everyone knows three facts:  1) the Petition for guardianship (and to declare Mary incompetent) is defective in the it does not disclose the nearest and closest relatives of Mary Sykes.  [Once that was presented in court, the judge should have asked if all the close relatives have been served to CT and the GAL’s 14 days in advance of Dec. 7, 2012, but she did not] 2)  That Gloria, Aunt Jo, and Aunt yo were all entitled to 14 days notice, and 3 That Gloria, Aunt Jo, and Aunt Yo did not receive the notice.   Ergo as the Appellate Court of Illinois ruled that this simple requirement was jurisdictional the Court has no jurisdiction.   No jurisdiction equates to void orders and the GALs are not properly appointed.    The plenary guardian was not properly appointed.
The foregoing is the ‘dirty little secret’ of the Sykes case.         As there is approximately a million dollars that has found its way out of the Sykes estate and has not been inventoried there is a strong incentive for all the perfidy that you describe.     Sykes is only one estate, and the loot totals a million dollars more than is inventoried or disclosed.
I’ve suggested that the two GALs do their job and report the irregularity to the Judge.     The miscreants had ‘kittens’ and my suggestion was reported to the ARDC and constitutes the bulk of the disciplinary complaint against me.    Apparently it is ethically challenged activity for a lawyer to admonish such ‘august’ people as Farenga, Stern et al. to do their jobs.
I’ve called for and continue to call for a honest complete and comprehensive investigation by law enforcement.    I challenged both the ARDC and the GALs to joint with me my call for the investigation – if they have nothing to hide.     The result is a very loud silence (and disclosure by the ARDC that someone violated Ms. Denison’s copyright.)
Ken Ditkowsky
Thanks, Ken, but the reality is, when CF copies and sends off tons of the blog to the ARDC, she is violating Federal Copyright Laws.  She can send sites, she can send portions that are necessary, but she cannot send page after page of blog.  That’s copyright infringement and I am asking you to email me the tons of pages.  If your writings and teachings are in there, then she violated your copyright too, should you proceed to litigate against her.  Scott has also provided postings and Gloria and I have checked with them, and they have not given CF any permission to download, print out, copy or otherwise disseminate their writings and teachings in whole or part.
As soon as I get your materials, I will be filing a copyright for the last 3 months of the blog, and once I receive the registration, if this case is not over, I will file suit in Federal District Court for copyright infringement, as long as my claims against CF have matured (ie, this case is over and she is no longer continuing torts against me by filing groundless complaints, sending out cease and desist letters willy nilly, etc.)

The Continuing Saga of Courtroom Lies, and more Courtroom Lies and PS and AS spouting them like the Buckingham Fountain–all sparkly with colors and lights too!

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:\

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.

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–

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).

Motion to Show Cause why Sanctions should not be entered against Attorneys Stern and Schmeidel


Gloria, this is dedicated to your bravado today in court.
You go girl!

Atty: Pro Se

In Re the Estate of

Mary G. Sykes,
An Alleged Disabled

No.: 09 P 4585

To: See attached service list:

Please take notice, that on October 3, 2012, at 2:00 p.m. the undersigned will appear before the Honorable Judge Maureen E. Connors or any judge sitting in her stead in the courtroom usually occupied by her in Room 1814 of the Richard J Daley Center, Chicago, Illinois, and present the attached MOTION TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE ENTERED FOR PERJURY AGAINST PETER SCHMEIDEL AND ADAM STERN, and true and correct copes of which are attached hereto and served upon you.

Gloria Sykes, Daughter of Respondent
Pro Se
Prepared By:
Gloria J Sykes, Pro Se
6014 N Avondale Ave
Chicago, IL 60631
ph 733-910-3310

Atty: pro se


In Re the Estate of

Mary G. Sykes,
An Alleged Disabled

No.: 09 P 4585

NOW COMES Gloria J. Sykes, daughter and interested party in the above proceeding and respondent to a Motion for a Petition to Partition in the above proceeding, (“Gloria”) as it relates to the above Guardianship Estate of  Mary G. Sykes (“Mary”) filing this motion pro se,  and respectfully moves this honorable court to Show Cause why these two attorneys should not be sanctioned for making false, and blatantly misleading statements to the court, namely: 1) that Gloria’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (Soldini) was heard and denied by the court numerous times; and 2) Gloria’s Witnesses and Testimony to be heard in relation to her Probate Proceeding have been stricken by prior order of court when in fact they have not.
The facts relating to this motion are as follows:


1.    On August 16, 2012, between 2:00 pm and 4:30 pm, a hearing was to be held concerning invalidating the apportionment of property held jointly between Mary and Gloria located at 6014 N. Avondale Ave. in Chicago, Illinois.  While the entire family agrees (except for the Plenary Guardian) that this house fully and rightfully belongs to Gloria, and Mary’s name was added as a testamentary convenience, the plenary guardian, Carolyn Toerpe, has filed, and this court has wrongfully entertained a Motion for Partition AND a Motion to invalidate an apportionment agreement dating back to August 2008 and embodied in a court order.
2.    The time to attack a judgement and a court order is two (2) years as set forth in § 1401 of the Illinois Probate Code.
3.    In August of 2010 during a hearing, Judge Connors said she did not have to follow Illinois procedure and she could invalidate another courts’ judgements–referring to this court order.  Judge Connors said she did not have to follow § 1401 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure relating to the attack upon a judgment.
4.    Dr. Shaw, accordingly, was called to testify on August 16, 2012 as a continuing witness in these matters.  Gloria was to cross examine his testimony–which she did.
5.    Prior to the testimony of Dr. Shaw, Gloria brought an Emergency Motion to Dismiss the above proceeding for lack of jurisdiction under the Sodini case.
6.    The court heard argument, first asking Adam Stern, Guardian ad Litem as to his comments on the motion and he replied that the court had heard this matter “numerous times” and denied any lack of jurisdiction “numerous times.”
7.    Then court then asked Peter Schmeidel, attorney for the Plenary Guardian as to his comment on the motion, and he agreed with Attorney Stern that not only had the court heard this matter “numerous times” and denied any lack of jurisdiction “numerous time” BUT he even argued it on appeal and it was denied by the appellate court.
8.    Gloria repeatedly tried to make her argument that both were lying, there are no court orders that any Motions to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction were heard or were ever denied, that her appeal was dismissed not on the grounds, but for brief formatting errors (section 341 compliance)–but the court cut her off quickly each time telling her to shush up and “not speak”.
9.    During this same proceeding before, during and after the testimony of Dr. Shaw, Peter Schmeidel made continuing comments that “Gloria was barred by court order to present her witnesses and testimony” when in fact that was not true.
10.    Gloria’s attorney friend, JoAnne Denison (Attorney Denison), then went downstairs to the Probate Files records office and requested and obtained copies of all court orders dating from January of 2011 to present, paid $21.75, obtained a receipt, and handed it to Gloria who then presented it to the court, challenging Peter Schmeidel AND GAL Adam Stern to find copies of the court orders they asserted to the court existed regarding striking Gloria’s witnesses and exhibits and the numerous denials of Motions to Dismiss based upon lack of Jurisdiction (Sodini notices) .
11.    Attorney Denison in the hall outside the court, again challenged the two and both refused her challenge to find the court orders Schmeidel and Stern told the court existed.  Atty Stern claimed he would find the order barring Gloria’s witnesses and testimony.  Atty Denison warned him it wasn’t in the imaging official records and he had better not mock something up or she will figure it out.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully submitted that both GAL Adam Stern and Attorney Peter Schmeidel be brought before this honorable court and be sanctioned for blatantly and unrepentantly making false, misleading and completely untruthful statements to this honorable court, thereby severely prejudicing and obstructing justice in the above proceeding as it relates to Ms. Gloria Sykes.
Ms. Sykes also respectfully requests that a hearing be promptly set on her Motion to Dismiss/NonSuit for lack of Jurisdiction because no Soldini notices were ever served upon Mary’s elderly sisters, Josephine and Yolanda and that GAL Stern be directed to subpoena Josephine to court because she is currently afraid if she “takes the wrong side” like Yolanda, Gloria and numerous other family members the GAL’s will not let her see Mary again.

The pack of Orders obtained together with the time stamped receipt are attached hereto as exhibit A.

Because it is believed that Adam Stern, Cynthia Farenga and Carolyn Toerpe’s attorneys have interferred with the production of transcripts in the above case (someone is doing this, because they simply cannot be ordered and transcribed to date), a bystander’s report as to the above is attached hereto witnesses by Attorney Denison, Ms. Gloria Sykes and Mr. Scott Evans in support of this motion.

It is further noted that approximately 80% of the court’s file is missing, including 13 large volumes of appellate record which were sent back to the trial court in March 2012.  It is respectfully requested that an order be issued requiring all attorneys (including Ms. Denison and Mr. Ditkowsky) meet with their files and records and the entire file be reconstructed and then imaged by Files Department).  Much injustice is being done in this case because the file has been professional “cleansed.”  While the miscreants say it is Gloria, the reality is, Gloria is helping with a blog located at where all transcripts and records are published. So if Gloria is helping and participating there and this blog is publishing the pleadings, transcripts and orders, it makes no sense to accuse her.


Gloria Sykes, Daughter of Respondent
Pro Se
Prepared By:
Gloria J Sykes, Pro Se
6014 N Avondale Ave
Chicago, IL 60631
ph 733-910-3310

The undersigned herewith certifies that a copy of the foregoing Pleading entitled “Motion to Terminate the Plenary Guardianship” and Appearance were served upon the following parties as noted on December 14, 2009:

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

Mr. Peter Schmeidel
Fischel and Kahn Ltd
190 S. LaSalel St, Ste 2830
Chicago, IL 60603
via email and first class mail, postage prepaid

Ms. Cynthia Farenga
1601 Sherman Ave, #200
Evanston, IL 60201 via email and first class mail, postage prepaid



Exhibit A–The challenge to find the alleged court orders.

All orders from Jan 2011 to present, including dated receipt.

And note that while in about July 2012 it says Gloria’s witnesses and exhibits are barred, there was no prior court order to that effect.  I was there in July and PS was lying when he put that in that order too!  Gloria tried to tell the court that, but she again was sushed up and told “not to speak”


Today’s hearing–Fun and games with lies and more lies.

I really don’t know where to begin with today’s hearing–it was truly amazing.

First of all, and I truly have to congratulate Gloria, she finally filed some version of a Motion to NonSuit or Dismiss based upon Lack of Jurisdiction (Sodini)!  I don’t have a copy of it yet, but I hope she sends it to me soon for posting.

Yeah!  You go, Gloria.

Well, after that first stab with a nice large kitchen knife on the most obvious scab to pick with this court, you wouldn’t believe the out right lies that followed.

First, came the admonition from the Judge that it was her understanding that the issue had been dealt with by the court before, and she turned to Adam Stern and asked him if that was true.

AS replied that it had been brought up numerous times before and it had been denied. (Big lie no. 1)

PS then chimed in with how he brought it up in an appellate brief, he recalled writing the argument, and it was denied on appeal (even Bigger lie no. 2)

Gloria then tried to point out the appeal was dismissed for formatting issues, margins and number of pages, but the court kept on cutting her off and telling her “not to speak”.

The next topic they talked about before, during and after the testimony was PS constantly telling the court that Gloria’s testimony and exhibits had been barred because she did not send them to PS on time. (Medium size lie no.3 I’m giving it a medium on the lie because Gloria should have filed it with the court, she only emailed it, so I’m downgrading the lie.  JMHO)

Again, Gloria was repeatedly shushed up when she tried to counter with she had the dated emails she sent them on time and there was no such court order.  (Go ahead and look at the table of transcripts, documents and orders on this blog.  I don’t even think there was a motion in the file, let alone an order, and all motions by rule must be in writing and proper notice and service must be given).

And of course, you know me.  I just couldn’t resist plunking down $21.75, sweet talking my friend behind the Probate imaging and printing counter in the Probate files department for a current copy of all imaging of orders going back to January 2011 or about 21 months.

Guess what?  No such orders exist!  None.  No orders saying any Motions to Dismiss were filed and heard and denied, and no orders saying Gloria’s testimony and exhibits were barred.  ( I will post the packet in a bit and give anyone $1000 if they can find any such orders).

So, while Gloria was grilling Dr. Shaw a new charcoal crust on his liar’s sandwich consisting of multiple layers of pure baloney (he was testifying he saw Mary in 2012 but she was incompetent in 2008 to sign a settlement agreement after Mary met independently with a lawyer the day before, yeah, right, that testimony can’t be transcribed either), I was downstairs getting a current printout and receipt for all orders entered since January of 2011.

I bring that back upstairs, and have Gloria take it to the bench and present it as a minor “clean up matter” (when in reality it was a load of you know what looking for a fast moving fan).

Gloria proceeds to inform the court she just received a packet of all the court orders going back to January 2011 and there are no orders in there 1) denying any motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; 2) there is no order denying her the right to put on witnesses and her own exhibits.

Gloria says she has the emails containing a list of witnesses and exhibits and it was emailed to PS on time.  If she can find that to show PS is liar, I will post it.

While the Judge did admonish AS that he was the “eyes and ears of the court”, he swore to get the order barring Gloria’s witnesses and exhibits as untimely.  Gloria swore she never got a copy of the order, and I have to believe her because it’s not in the court’s paper file and it’s not on the court’s official imaging system.

Gloria told the judge she had no transcript from the prior court dates because all she gets is excuses when she orders them.  She does not have Shaw’s prior testimony, she does not have the testimony from May, though we have both ordered it.  (She should have made a request for a continuance based upon the fact she could not cross examine Dr. Shaw without a transcript of his prior testimony).

As soon as court was done, I looked for AS (CF wasn’t there due to a “personal matter”), and showed him the pack of orders and challenged him to find those orders in the packet.  He said he didn’t have time, he was busy writing up an order and he couldn’t do two things at once.  He never took up my challenge.  He said he would get it and email it to Gloria and get it to the judge tomorrow.  I warned him not to mock one up either because I’ll figure out how to show it was mocked up.

PS didn’t even bother responding when I challenged him regarding the printout of orders, he just walked on by.

But the piece de resistance for the day?  The ultimate kicker?  First the judge orders all of the attorneys outside the courtroom (this is despite the fact we really weren’t even talking about anything), and then she locks the door!  Amazing.  Even the cute little naive associate Amanda Byrnes who could not be more than 22 or so could not get into the court to get the last order stamped.  The judge kept on mouthing “come back tomorrow” for our orders.

You think we got on her last nerve?

I’m taking bets right now, 2 to 1: a) we never see the transcript from May 2012 or today; b) we don’t get the court orders.

Never mind.  Today I saw 3 orders drafted up.  Gloria initialed one and that was denying her Motion to Dismiss and she made AS put the grounds into it and he added “because it had been brought previously” (okay, that’s totally funny because jurisdiction can be brought up at any time and the court must make a serious ruling on it, despite the fact it’s an outright lie and there is no court order ruling on it prior to this day, with respect to PS’s lie that it was argued on appeal, it doesn’t matter if jurisdiction is brought up on the first or tenth appeal–it is always timely) and I will go back tomorrow to get the court order, then I will send Julia and I hope Scott can try to get copies.  I bet we don’t.  No matter, each of us will draft up declarations that Scott and I saw drafts of 3 court orders and then the court locked the doors and told us to come back tomorrow and when we did that, we were refused copies.

What a legal soap opera.  But you would think the Law Bulletin would catch on to this.  There’s drama, there’s lack of jurisdiction and the law at every turn, we have judges on the record saying they don’t have to follow the rule of law (Connors, August 2011), we have a judge tossing all the attorneys out of court and locking the door behind them without signed court orders, we even have a million dollars missing in gold coins!  Cash taken from a mattress.  A wrongful eviction.  Out of the wrongful eviction a Contempt Order against the Plenary Guardian.

I can’t think of a more compelling, addictive story.

So when did the court say it would consider final oral arguments on the partition motion?  October 3, 2012 at 2pm.  You think the court is avoiding something?

As Sarah Pallin says (and/or Tina Fey), “you betcha”.

And Ken already pointed out to me that it’s interesting how the date was well after his Sept 2 to 3rd date for his hearing on lying.

Who’s been caught lying now.


Cynthia Farenga using the Illinois ARDC continues to violate the First Amendment rights of Atty Kenneth Ditkowsky

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:

The core of the American Judicial System is the First Amendment.     The lynch pin of American Freedom is the First Amendment and the right of citizens to speak out.
I do not know who reads the ‘blogs’ but I do know that Farenga and Stern do.    Today I received from the Ms. Black at Illinois ARDC a packet of papers that was about five inches high.    Contained in the packet were a large number of pages that appear to be printouts from the NASGA, Probate Sharks and J Denison authored blogs.    In the packet was also a letter from Ms. Farenga that points out the fact that she wishes the ARDC to stop my protests to the authorities concerning the theft of approximately a million dollars in gold and silver coins from Mary Sykes’ safety deposit box.      She says that I am threatening her with arrest and prosecution.    It is unfortunate, but I do not have the power (jurisdiction) to cause her arrest for her part in the non-inventory of these assets.      Ms. Farenga (and apparently the ARDC attorneys) that she is a judicial official and therefore her conduct and that of Stern is in the same category as the Divinity!     Being such an ‘august person’ being critical of Farenga is ‘ethically challenged.’
As is my policy, my files in connection with the Sykes file and these ARDC proceedings are open to law enforcement – including the United States Treasury Department.    The most recent production by Ms. Black and the ARDC is also open for examination and copying.
The mailing of this packet of material to me at this point in time, and the letters and material contained therein authored by Farenga are a ‘red flag!’    The fact that no investigative report has been produced that the ARDC could have relied upon to make its terrible allegations against me is another red flag.    If I recall, two red flags is a Hurricane Warning.
I’ve copied Ms. Farenga and Mr. Stern on this e-mail as I want them to know that they will not silence me nor will they directly or indirectly stop me from the full exercise of my Constitutional Rights and in particular my First Amendment Rights.      I also want them to know that their characterization of the gold coins as imaginary is wrong and a deception.    There were a large number of gold coins in the safety deposit box and another bunch obtained from Mr. Albert Biddy.    Ms. Gloria Sykes has immortalized the truth of allegation that there were Gold coins in her affidavit filed with the ARDC.     A close relative reported the same in open court.   She described the packet in which they were contained as a ‘bag about a foot in height and six inches wide, filled more than 1/2.     Mary herself made statements concerning the coins.     Had you, Ms. Farenga or you Mr. Stern done your job or cared that you were a fiduciary you would have reported this information to the Court rather than misrepresenting to the ARDC that I was lying!     Indeed, had the ARDC done due diligence it would have brought its disciplinary action against you rather than me.     That fact speaks volumes.
Ms. Farenga, Mr. Stern, and Mr. Schmiedel are fully aware that the final chapter is not going to be written by them or by me, but by law enforcement if they do an honest, complete and comprehensive investigation.     Indeed, as far as I know the Constitution of the State of Illinois and the United States of America is intact and has not been revoked in whole or part.    Similarly the tax laws are still in full force and effect and as at this point in time over a million dollars in taxes, interest, and penalties is due and payable the delinquent taxpayer and those who aided and abetted her in the evasion of the taxes due are culpable.   Ms. Farenga – tell the IRS that the non-inventoried coins are ‘imaginary!’     The fact is they are not and no matter how you shade the truth the United States of America and the State of Illinois are entitled to their tax money.
Let me make this point – I offered Ms. Farenga, Mr. Stern and Mr. Schmiedel to join with the friends and families of the guardian abuse victims and request an honest, complete and comprehensive investigation.    Instead they and apparently certain employees of the ARDC began searching the blogs for anything that they could use to intimidate.     IT DID NOT WORK!      If in fact, Farenga, Stern, Schmiedel et al have nothing to hide, and indeed have done nothing wrong – join with me and the friends, family, and persons interested in Mary Sykes and the persons who are allegedly  being victimized by Court appointed guardians in calling for law enforcement to do an honest, complete and comprehensive investigation of the Mary Sykes case. 09 P 4585.
Ken Ditkowsky
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!

Silly me, guess what I forgot to post? Carolyn Toerpe’s defective Petition for Guardianship

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

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:

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


Questions to Dr. Shaw, Thursday, August 16, 2012 pm in courtroom 1804

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.


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.

Good comments and a summary from Ken Ditkowsky!

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

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


(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

Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 16:35:30 -0700
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

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.

From Ken Ditkowsky. Who Atty Leah Black really wants to testify…

Ms. Black does not want Connors to testify, nor does she want Gloria to testify.    She would like to limit the testimony to Farenga and Stern and deny me cross examination.    Unfortunately she knows that is not going to happen.     The Alternate reality is not going to fly.     The strategy was to frighten me!    A Judge, especially, an appellate court judge testifying against you is supposed to be a terrifying prospect.     It is not if you realize that if Connors does testify she might decide to be truthful.    If she is truthful her testimony will be that there is a pattern of conduct in the probate division of the Circuit Court wherein seniors are all too often railroaded into guardian-ships in which they lose their liberty, their property, their civil rights and their human rights.   
Connor’s testimony if contains even a scintilla truth is going to have admissions that:
1) she was told on August 31, 2009 that the applicant for plenary guardian was unable get Mary Sykes’ doctor sign a certificate of incompetency  CCP211 and even though charged by the jurisdictional statute to hold a hearing in which the standard of proof was clear and convincing she never held a hearing.    Ms. Black denied that no hearing was held in answers to Request to Admit.    Thus, Ms Black is going to prove herself a bit aggressive with the her answers to the Request to Admit.
2) that she knew or should have known the record in the case before her and the record revealed that a) the petition was faulty as it did not name all the close relatives and b) the close relatives were not served with a written 14 day notice prior to the hearing.    In fact there is no certificate of mailing or service.
3) that there were other irregularities.    I’ve listed them previously so I will not do it again, but these irregularities were also jurisdictional and continue to this day.
I do not see how it is unethical or immoral to refuse to attorn to what in my opinion is corruption of the court significantly worse that the parent – Greylord.     How can any right thinking person sit quiet an allow seniors to have their estates looted and  their liberties forfeited.    
Ken Ditkowsky

From Atty Ditkowsky, corruption in probate.

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

More and more cases are coming to light wherein estates of the elderly are looted by the 2nd oldest profession.     The cottage industry that is now in place designed to strip ‘grandma’ of her liberty, her property, her civil rights and her human rights is not only well established but has the support of many of regulators of the lawyers.     As lawyers ‘rise from the dead’ and look at the Courts that foster the abuse and exploitation of the elderly and their protectors the ‘seniors’ and their supporters will see a glint of light – it is obvious that our elected representatives and the media are totally disinterested and like happened in 1936 will be too little to late to prevent the disaster that is coming down the pike.    Today, the incidents of cases like Mary Sykes is still in manageable proportions, but a decade from now it will be routine to steal from grandma – or if the family does not get there first, the predators in the legal profession will do the dirty deed.
In Cook County, Illinois in the mid-part of the 2Oth century, if the ‘old folks’  (who at that time were in their 50’s) wanted to put something away for a rainy day a bank vault the last place that you put your gold coins, and other fungible valuables.    What you did was build a secret place.     My grandfather had a secret room off the bedroom.   I was six years old when I found it.    I saw some light coming from the wall and tracing the light I walked into a room that was not for the public.   My two aunts, who had lived in the house as children and young adults, had no idea that the room existed.     When I discovered the room, I was attracted to a ‘colt revolver’ that was hanging on a hook near the door.    I pulled the weapon down, and just a real cowboy I strapped it on.    It was heavy, but that did not matter.   Off I went to play with my friends.   Fortunately for everyone I ran across my grandmother before I got out the front door.    The six shooter was confiscated and for my ingenuity I was rewarded with a sound spanking!
After I became a lawyer (a lot of years afterwards) I directed executors and heirs to examine walls, ceilings, attics, and even stairs to look for valuables that the old folks hid.   Mary Sykes had horde of cash in a Mattress.  (This was not inventoried).   A client hid $250,000 in a stairway.   Another made a false wall in a closet.    etc.     smaller sums were hidden in sugar containers etc.     The Mary Sykes generation were a generation of savers.    When a client of mine found the cache I more than once lost favor of the client by suggesting that the item be inventoried and if taxes were due that they be paid.     (I could not and would not advise the violation of laws).
The depression habits and the fear of government generated a great deal of cash and other valuables not being placed in safety deposit boxes or banks.     The abrogation of the requirement that the county treasurer be present when a decedent’s safety deposit box be opened made safety deposit boxes more practical.    (The banks at that point in time stopped sealing the safety deposit boxes of a decedent)    Thus, there is a great deal of cash and other collectibles available for predators.
Old fashioned dishonesty by financial institutions including but not limited to banks, insurance companies and the like is another age old problem.   The type of dishonesty that you describe is sometime cured by asking the same question more than one time.    An inquiry from a lawyer, followed by an inquiry from another source, and possibly a third works wonders.    Very recently I found in a real estate closing statement a 700,000 dollar escrow at Chicago Title and Trust Company.     I wrote a letter asking for the money (for my clients).   I received a letter back telling me that my demand was pre-mature and I had to wait a year.    A year later I wrote the title company and was told that the previous year they received a demand and had paid the money.   They did not claim that they paid the funds to me.   I contacted the person who the title company paid the funds to and he denied receiving them.    I took him to court, and we decided to both confront the people at CTTC.     The supervisor we talked to ran us through hoops until I handed him a subpoena.    He then found the records Houston, Texas and I had a check for my clients.
Corruption in the Courts is a real bummer.    Cook County Illinois is no stranger to it.    In the Greylord investigation by the Fed,  it is reported that 17 judges[and 50+ attys] went to jail.    With the number of complaints that are being aired on the blogs the ‘Son of Greylord’ when and if properly investigated is going to help fill our prisons.     Illinois has two successive governors in jail!    All at the same time.
Ken Ditkowsky

A crazy exchange of emails between Cynthia Farenga, Ken Ditkowsky and myself

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.



From: JoAnne M Denison <> [Edit Address Book]
To:, 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.



—–Original Message—–
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 ,, 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” <>
To: “NASGA” <>, “probate sharks” <>, “Michigan Advocacy Project” <>
Cc: “Tim Lahrman NASGA” <>,
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

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,

I just received notice that Cynthia Farenga is commenting on and about my rights of association with my mother and ability to visit with and or speak to on the telephone.  Let me remind both of you Adam Stern and Cynthia Farenga that noted (and now highlighted) in the December 7, 2009 and February 2010 transcripts are instructions by Judge Connors that Carolyn Toerpe is to allow for free and unencumbered visits and phone calls between my mother and all of her family and friends.  That the guardianship is a fraud, since there were no 14 day Sodini notices, I am certain that your need to have ‘supervised visits’ which, even Judge Stuart ordered that I did not have to pay for any visits, if again we are to believe that the court has jurisdiction to order a glass of water in the Sykes case, which it doesn’t, then you two and your client are again in contempt of court for not complying with such orders.  To wit, it is no coincidence that your client Carolyn Toerpe STOPPED all visits and phone calls too (any why can’t I talk to my mother on the telephone?), after you Cynthia Farenga were party to an email to you written by Carolyn Toerpe notifying you that the service was ‘blotched’ and that I was served with a “Pizza Flyer”.  My cousin Debby was copied on that email and told me.  There is also no coincidence that I had three wonderful loving visits with my mother, miniature golfing, long walks, games of canasta, attending church, and bowling!  At all times my mother was engaged, active, and highly competent which flies in the face of your friend, Dr. Shaw who has lied under oath twice … claiming that my mother was incompetent in 2008 and therefore she is incompetent now.  Your quest to have your buddies ‘supervise’ visits and return to the court with negative and malicious reports that I ‘agitate’ my mother and have done her harm, in order to continue your quest to financially exploit both my mother and me is quite interesting.  I do not have to pay to see my mother: neither does she have to suffer because the two of you have instructed your client Carolyn Toerpe to perpetrate undue influence upon my Mother, telling her that I have “abandoned” her and claims that I have abused my mother! 
I have told you both in the past that if you have such proof then why didn’t you turn this ‘evidence’ to the State’s Attorneys Office!  You have no proof and the only people of disillusion are the two of you.  If I recall, Cynthia Farenga, and the transcripts are proof enough, that when I told you that Toerpe has stolen money from my mother, et al, you went before the Judge the first day you entered the case, and asked to have the order of protection entered against me.  You were denied.  
I call my mother every day and when able, (if Toerpe’s VM is open for messages) I leave messages.  Tell your client to let my mother pick up the telephone and talk to me today.  As long as I can talk to her and she can talk to me during this litigation where I will prevail Adam Stern and Cynthia Farenga, she, my mother will have hope and in that hope she will stay strong and healthy knowing that I will get her returned to her home, with the people she loves and trusts, and in a community where she thrived.  I recorded visits with my mother under the protections of Rehab Assist and Rehab Assist reported to the court that I ‘abused’ my mother and that she “never asked” to come to court.  The digital recordings will be all public soon, Cynthia Farenga and Adam Stern.  MY MOTHER NEEDS TO TALK TO ME TODAY. 
Show good faith and tell your client to pick up the phone and allow my mother to talk to me.  There is no court order as she told the Naperville Police stating that my mother can’t talk to me on the telephone.  Nor is there any court order stating that I need supervised visits.  Cynthia Farenga and Adam Stern just want to make certain that the loving and active mother-daughter visits are reported to the Court as hostile and abusing visits.  As I asked you Ms. Farenga and Mr. Stern, I would pay for a deception expert, but you refused.  Now who is afraid of the truth?????
I will call my mother every hour on the hour today until I speak with her,  If I do not speak to her, then I will call for a wellness check.  Obviously, if Toerpe refuses to allow me to talk to my mother on the telephone, there must be something wrong?  Thanks for your help in making the telephone conversations — daily — start up again.  Regarding visits, my cousins Kathie, Art, Richard, Tim, Greg, Jerry, et al, they have all agreed to ‘supervise’ as so Adam Stern was instructed to allow friends or family … and I can have visits “approximately every two weeks”: it’s been approximately 17 months since I last visited with my mother: it’s been 16 months since your Client allowed me to speak to my mother on the telephone.  The last telephone conversation, mother asked me to help her.  She was visiting at my Aunt Jo and when I called to which my Aunt Jo a happy holiday, she handed the phone to my mother: my Aunt Jo gave my mother and me a Christmas gift of talking to each other.

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.  

Gloria Jean Sykes



From Ken Ditkowsky–Why is his ARDC proceeding as obviously slanted as the Sykes 09 P 4585 proceeding? It looks like another wired, railroaded proceeding.

Subject: Son of Greylord

Every day brings new surprises.
As you are aware I sent to Lea Black a request to produce documents.   She responded by apparently copying her file and adding a bunch of duplicates to reach a production of over a 1000 pages.    It had been years since someone tried that ploy on me, but, I accepted the documents silently and Larry is busy scanning them into the computer.   (I went over every document).
My document request was very broad and only the kitchen sink was deleted from the request.   My request was an opportunity for the ARDC to fill my office with every complaint or paper that mentioned the name of Farenga, Stern, Ditkowsky etc.  If I received a copy of every one of Gloria’s complaints against Farenga, or Stern, or Schmiedel, or Brodsky there was not a word of complaint that I could utter.    Instead I got a carefully culled series of duplicates and pleadings designed not to inform me of whatever I am charged with by the ARDC.
today Ms. Black filed an objection to my motion in limine to prevent her from now coming up with the documents that should have been produced and were not.    In addition Ms. Black objected to the 237 notice that required her to appear to be called as an adverse witness.    This notice requires the production of the material I should have gotten by the Discovery (214) request – and the originals.   On a level playing field in a none wired proceeding the rule would be that as Ms. Black has been verifying the documents she has made herself a witness – In the 237 notice I noticed her to come to Court and testify.  She now wants to back away  – however, if she knows enough to verify documents she should know enough to testify.
If I recall correctly the reason I wanted the Request to Admit to be verified was the fact Ms. Black on behalf of the Administrator denied that no hearing had been held as to Mary Sykes’ competency.    In fact, if Ms.Black had done any due diligence she would have recognized that not only was there no hearing, but Adam Stern in an e-mail admitted that the way that a guardian was appointed was that he, Farenga, and Carolyn (or her attorney) had agreed to it and Judge Connors entered an order.    (who cares about the facts – I’ve made up my mind approach).    (Stern stated that Gloria or her attorney had also agreed, but,  that statement has no credibility what so ever – Harry Reid was not the author of that statement and he did not assist Adam in making it).   The Sodini protections were not afforded Mary and therefore there is no jurisdiction in the Circuit Court of Cook County and NO IMMUNITY!     The taking of Mary’s money was a garden variety theft!     (If an African American teenager had taken a dime out of Mary’s purse you would see the local police with guns drawn and panting!    Middle age matron finds before it is lost a million dollars in assets and it is ho hum time.)
It occurs to me that Ms. Black at this point in time is realizing that taking advice from Farenga, Stern, Schmiedel and participating in their efforts to thwart any investigation into the Sykes matter is placing her (Black) in serious jeopardy.   With a corruption investigation of the Chicago courts a sure thing, Ms. Black can quickly be the ‘poster girl’ for the ‘Son of Greylord.’
There is no way that -even in Illinois – law enforcement can allow senior citizens (like Mary Sykes) to be stripped of their liberty, their property, their civil rights and their human rights.     There is no way that a 93 year old grandmother is going to be denied access to her 80 plus year old sister for almost a year and no hue and cry is going to raised!    There is no way that a mother – who lived closely with her younger daughter – is going to be denied all access to the younger daughter without some type of drama.     Indeed, all the Illinois Department of Revenue or the Internal Revenue have to do is to make one telephone and they will have all the information necessary to collect over a million dollars in taxes, interest and penalties.    The fact that our friends the guardians may have destroyed the inventory that was kept in the box is interesting but not irrelevant.   On the civil level of tax collection the burden is on the taxpayer.   Thus, as Mary had a meticulous inventory of all the coins if the record was destroyed the IRS can claim two million in value.   Our guardian friends then would have to prove that there were not 2 million in value.    /// CONSPIRACY TO EVADE FEDERAL INCOME TAXES IS a serious matter.
Ms. Black has had experience with this group.    Joel Brodsky is reported to have claimed that he received advice from Ms. Black.    Ms. Troepe has a reputation of not being bothered with facts.    She was reported to have told Mary (aged 90 at the time) that the money removed from a bank account was removed as an investment in an IRA account.    Ms. Black may be given credit for *****.    (I do not remember what advice was allegedly given to Brodsky – it might have been to part his hair on the right rather than the left!     however, I tend believe it was much more substantive.)
The ARDC administrator now has three attorneys representing him but he has no answer to Alvarez 132 S.Ct 2537 or Nelson v Streeter 16 F3d 145.   These two cases are in my opinion coffin nails in the scurrilous and merit-less disciplinary complaint filed against me.    In light of the Himmel case and the clear and unequivocal words of the First Amendment it is very clear that the failed sanction motion filed by Farenga, Stern, and Schmiel and dismissed for want of jurisdiction and this disciplinary case is a bold attempt to silence my calls for an investigation and for the Department of the treasury to collect the now more than a million dollars in taxes due from our guardian friends.
Ken Ditkowsky

Fax to Attys Leah Black and Steve Kozlov at the ARDC

First please see the links to the fax I just sent to Attys Leah Black and new counsel Scott Kozlov.

Atty Kozlov has just filed an appearance on KD’s ARDC case, so we want to make him immediately aware of the quagmire into which he will step.

And Scott, it’s not too late to call Cynthia Fareng and Adam Stern and tell them to do the right thing and dismiss the Sykes Probate case no. 09 P 4585 before it’s too late for you too.

You are now aware the court is without jurisdiction from prior posts on this blog, in particular please see the “Important Documents” page on this website, and esp. Yolanda’s declaration indicating there is no jurisdiction over Mary Sykes because a Notice of Hearing was not disseminated 14 days prior to the hearing by the petitioner, in writing, to the two adult sisters of Respondent (Yolanda and Josephine) as well as another adult child–Gloria.

Gloria has been victimized in all of this and was (wrongfully) evicted  from her home, despite the fact she was a long term care giver.

Be forewarned, the case is wired and apparently it goes high enough to get into the ARDC, the IAG and other offices.

It is only due to this blog and other blogs that are disseminating the information that something is strangely and strongly awry in the Probate Court.

Please join with Ken and I to ask for and obtain, a complete investigation of this case!

thank you for your attention to this matter.

JoAnne Denison

From Ken Ditkowsky – a good question, where is the IAG, the State’s Atty, etc.? Extended coffee breaks?

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

It is interesting everyone complains of corruption in the political system of Illinois and in particular Cook County and in these Elder Abuse and Financial Exploitation cases with all the perfidy on the table, with the miscreants being challenged from many sources to tell the truth,  and with the world watching the miscreants are immune from investigation, immune from punishment, and even immune from criticism.     A super secret vitiation of the First Amendment has been imposed and a scurrilous witch hunt is in full force reasonably calculated to silent any citizen and in particularly attorney who objects to ‘grandma’ being stripped naked of her liberty, property, civil rights and human rights .
Greylord was a parallel to the current situation.    17 judges went to jail in Greylord!    In recent months 2 Illinois Governors went to jail.   Scores of other political figures have been domiciled in Federal prisons.     Where is the Illinois government!     Where is the Attorney General?     Where is the States Attorney?      We know where the legal profession is – they are either hiding or they are protecting the miscreants.     The State of Illinois motto should either be changed to ‘corruption’  or  ‘shame.’
Unfortunately, Illinois is not alone and this epidemic has infected just about every one of the 50 states.     The Sykes case is a perfect case for prosecution, as by my calculation over a million dollars in Federal and State Income taxes have not been paid.    ( I am assuming that assets not inventoried were not reported as income on tax returns).      Ms. Sykes indicates that the isolation of Mary Sykes still continues in full force and effect and her family (including her daughter and siblings) do not know if she is alive of dead!     If Mary is dead the odds are very good that she was ‘murdered!’    I’ve copied the Naperville, Illinois  Police Department so that they can do a wellness check.     We certainly do not want another situation (like in the Bush case) that cremation was quickly attempted so that the acceleration of death would not be detected.      It should be noted that the pre-cover-up interpretation of the law was that if you accelerated the time/date of death of another person it was a homicide.    If your action was intentional it was a murder.    Buck vs. Bell is not the law of the United States of America, but you were never know it when you examined the Gulag that is the Sykes case.
If law enforcement does not have anything to hide let us have an honest, complete and comprehensive investigation of the Sykes case right now!   It is time for Illinois to do something to re-mediate its terrible reputation and demonstrate the at least Illinois citizens and their elected officials have respect for the Rule of Law and will not tolerate the exploitation of the elderly by Court appointed predators.  
Ken Ditkowsky

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.


Draft Statutory of Power of Attorney for Health Care and Probate Rider

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.






THIS POWER OF ATTORNEY has been made and signed on

this ___ day of ________________ 20___

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

name: _____________________________________

(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: _________________________________________


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.):





_______(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.


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)


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

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.


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 __________________________________________

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)


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: ____________________________________


How to stop the flow of money into the Probate/Nursing Home evil cabal

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.


Just Doing Cynthia Farenga’s work–more stuff I WANT HER TO FILE ASAP

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.


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.



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 Re the Estate of

Mary G. Sykes,
A disabled person

Case No.: 09 P 4858

Hon. Jane Louise Stuart

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:
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.
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.
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.

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 and 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.

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

From Ken Ditkowsky — a summary of the miscreants

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

The hard truth is this: Cynthia Farenga and Adam Stern agreed to disregard, cover-up, destroy the ‘truths’ in the Sykes case in order to comply with an agreement between them and Toerpe and Toerpe’s attorneys for financial gain. ” [Gloria’s comments, Ken’s reply]
taking these words out of the context of the sentence that they were in, these words could be defamatory.    (Let us ignore innocent construction and the opinion arguments -also let us ignore the fact that Farenga and Stern are public officials – the spurious ARDC complaint against me verifies that statement)    Can we prove these words?    Yes, we can do it by strong circumstantial evidence reciting the following facts:
1) Cynthia Farenga is obsessed by who is getting paid and what.
2) Cynthia Farenga squeezes the buffalo on the nickel so hard that the Animal Rights groups are suing her for cruelty to animals, however, she has filed no fee petition.
3)  Cynthia Farenga knows all about the million dollars in assets that we taken from the safety deposit boxes and the assets that we taken from the house and has not reported the same to the Court.   At the very least Farenga was aware of the serious allegation and could have verified the same with a scintilla of effort, yet she never reported the same as an allegation.
4) Cynthia Farenga refuses to join in an investigation of the Sykes case, ergo she and Stern are hiding something.
If you need more proof of a cover-up,  Brodsky suddenly turned on Gloria when she refused to sign a ‘settlement agreement’ that essentially was a concession agreement.   He was so upset that he went around trying to recruit family members to join in reporting to the Court that Gloria was bi-polar.    I suggested that Gloria would have been proven more than bi-polar if she had signed the settlement agreement.   That of course earned me a bunch of complaints to the ARDC.
Members of choir – like it not it is my opinion  – that  I would not be surprised if at some point in time Farenga or Stern confirms the ‘hard truth’ of the statement in brackets below:.
[WHAT WE NEED IS AN HONEST, COMPLETE, AND COMPREHENSIVE INVESTIGATON BY LAW ENFORCEMENT SO THE OBJECTIVE TRUTH WILL BE ON THE TABLE FOR ALL TO SEE, HEAR AND PONDER.    JoAnne Denison called for Cynthia Farenga to do the ‘right thing’ and inform the court that the Sodini protections were not afforded Mary Sykes and therefore as matter of law the Probate Court had no jurisdiction to appoint Troepe as plenary guardian or to do some of the terrible things that it has done.]
from Ken Ditkowsky, edited for grammar and typos only.

Okay, let’s rehash the law of who is famous and who is not……..

Dear Gloria;

Thank you for your very kind response regarding what I am doing to try to move along the dismissal/nonsuit of 09 P 4585, which Ken will agree should have been dismissed 2.9 years ago, right?

In any case, I know you and CF have your panties in a bit of a bunch over the pleadings I draft for you completely pret a porter–ie, ready to wear or use.

I did Cynthia’s because she asked me for help in an emailing whining she had no help.

I did yours well, because I think you need to file that and I wanted to make it easy for you.

I know as a reporter you were told “don’t ever use anyone’s likeness or name without permission”, blah, blah, BUT it isn’t as simple as that and the newsworthy exception is very broad.  I assure you I am not using your name (which you keep on telling me and Ken you’re famous anyway so it shouldn’t be a problem) to trade off or palm off some sort of success or promotion for myself.  You would tell me that wouldn’t work anyway because your name and fame well out shrowds mine at any time.  And well, personally, I don’t care about fame, money, blah, blah, or I wouldn’t be doing this and Ken wouldn’t either. (In fact, I still have to figure out how to pay rent this month, oh well, that’s another day for sure).

Also, the companies that produce those shows are not in it to test the bandwith of that case law.  They aren’t looking to get to the edge or test the waters because that would be expensive and a waste of time outside their focus.  BUT when you have a lawyer doing a blog, what do I care.  You think CF’s gonna sue me with the famous 10 page table of torts she’s involved in?  Gimme a break.  Right now, except for the last little squeal, she’s laying low on a case that has been sans jurisdiction for 3 years now!

I’d worry about you, except there’s the fact you mostly like to do cases pro se, you write motions with no less than a dozen unrelated topics in them, you give spontaneous speeches to the court also with no less than 10 unrelated topics in the speech, you don’t trust or listen to lawyers, so that’s an easy one there.  Not worried.  It’s okay tho, because in the Probate case, I personally enjoyed a lot of your speeches with 10 unrelated topics, but I was there for entertainment value and blogging, not lawyering.

Plus, I think it’s somewhat duplicitous don’t you, for me to be in the area of law and afraid that someone will sue me over something stupid?  Well, I see other lawyers whine about getting sued for their tortious behaviors and I think they need to put on big boy under pants.

Besides, the levels of views on the blog today was outstanding.  My dear readers must really love all of this–so for them, I’m going to publish your comments AND everything everyone has been whining about all over again.

You didn’t think I was a weenie lawyer, did you?  Naw, I still got all my teeth.

take care


PS–and while I’m publishing all this stuff again, I want to esp. dedicate it to Gloria, Cynthia and Lucinda who need a real lesson in First Amendment rights.  See Alvarez case and the Pentagon Papers or just watch the movie.  Yep, just checked, Pentagon Papers is on Netflix, as well as Daniel Ellsburg’s “Most Dangerous Man in America” and another documentary I have not seen (Shouting Fire, I put in in my queue).  Your homework is for Gloria, Lucinda and Cynthia to watch these and get back to me tomorrow.  That’ll keep you all up!  I also like the Wikileaks guy and you should read his bio on Wikipedia.  Another one of my heroes.  I think they’re doing a movie or there was a book or something.  He’s great.

Sent: Aug 1, 2012 6:46 PM
To: “” , Lucinda , NASGA , “” , Tim Lahrman NASGA , matt senator kirk , LUCIUS VERENUS , states attorney , Sherrif Dart , Elaine NAsga
Cc: scott evans , “” , Chicago Tribune ,
Subject: RE: Joanne Denison’s Contrived “Motion to Dismiss/Non Suit for Lack of Sodini Jurisdiction”

Dear All,
I have been involved in the publishing world since 1983 and the broadcast industry since 1975 and there one rule any reputable journalist must obey:  never publish a person’s likeness or name without prior permission in writing (rights agreements) unless of course that person is a public figure such as politicians, the Pope and/or Brittany Spears.  What we can do and we do do legally is used documents and or publicized recordings of men and women, to thoroughly report stories. That said, a reputable writer/author/reporter will not call a person x, unless there is evidence which the blogger, reporter, et al, produces along with the statement, and most of the time we don’t say it, we quote someone who has given us permission to publish their name and likeness and obviously what they have said.  That said, today’s journalist or blogger crosses the line often, and all to often uses adjectives to describe a person or persons that may appear to defame, but in the Sykes case, there are over 12 volumes of verified court documents where Cynthia Farenga and her colleagues have defamed and discredit me with ease, in order to create the appearance of their client, Carolyn Toerpe being the good daughter, and I am the bad daughter and my mother in her petition for an order of protection was ‘confused’ as to which daughter is which.
I’m a human lie detector, or so I’ve been called by colleagues who has, in the past been able to point to people’s lies and get them to ultimately tell the truth.  The truth, you know is not always spoken, but often in the eyes, the actions, the reactions and body and facial movements of people.  What drives me up a wall is when people LIE to me, LIE to the court, LIE for their own personal gain.  I was once standing before Judge Stuart, and I appeared before her only after I rattled off my customary I do not waive my rights to jurisdiction, and then the Sodini requirements, attorney Peter Schmiedel was lying about documents filed, and blabbing as he does, puffed up like a peacock and arms tightly crossed in front of him  (sure sign of a person who doesn’t believe what he or she is saying).   I blurted out, “LIAR” and as mouths dropped, Schmiedel backed off from the bench and mumbled, “I’m going to sue you for libel…”.  Adam Stern rushed to his rescue and said, “He didn’t say that…” and I dropped the documents I was holding to disappear from the bench.  Judge Stuart gave me an opportunity to leave the courtroom, where I was able to compose myself.  There are serious consequences to the LIES we tell and in the Sykes case the life of a once vibrant, loving, healthy, active, involved woman, my mother, is at stake.
I’m not defending JD: nor am I taking the side of Lucinda, who I do respect.  What is needed her is a sense of civility for all people, even people we don’t agree with.  I personally would love to get Cynthia Farenga in a room and ask her questions.  I’m certain she wouldn’t agree to that: she wouldn’t wont to go down that rabbit hole as there’s no telling what will bite her.  That said, a hard truth is better than a soft lie.  The hard truth is this:  Cynthia Farenga and Adam Stern agreed to disregard, cover-up, destroy the ‘truths’ in the Sykes case in order to comply with an agreement between them and Toerpe and Toerpe’s attorneys  for financial gain.  Hiding behind what they believe is ‘immunity’ they will and have stopped at nothing to cause me great harm, financial loses, and in their sociopathic minds, silence me and walk away with the Lumbermen’s money, my home and my  mother’s home.  Although the Illinois Probate Act of 1975 mandates that after the appointment of a guardian, the GAL’s are automatically dismissed, in order to protect the law firm of Fiscal and Kahn, who made a similar agreement, CF and AS have lied to every Judge since, every law enforcement agency and even the political elite, telling them that notices were served, they were reappointed to the case because of me (transference is a clear sign of LYING and guilt), and meanwhile, Toerpe had retained five attorneys from Fischel and Kahn, Leslie ? for the adversary in the bankruptcy court, and of course Harvey Jack Waller and his son:   Technically my mother is paying for 10 attorneys to keep her isolated, drug her, steal her home and her estate, destroy all people my mother loves and trusts, and, ultimately, murder her!
Cynthia Farenga, Adam Stern, Peter Schmiedel, Deborah Jo Soehlig, Amanda Brynes, and the other two male attorneys from Fischel and Kahn, have not put in for one dime however, which is curious, don’t you think?  There is a confidential settlement agreement which lays out how each of these attorneys will get paid, and I will make that available at the proper time: I refused to sign the agreement and AS, PS, CF and my attorney at the time JB attempted to file an in camera statement stating that I am bi polar and mentally ill.
What I’m trying to say is that JoAnne Denison can write her little head off as long as she doesn’t put words in my mouth, in another person’s mouth and when she uses adjectives, she backs it with evidence.  FYI Toerpe stopped me from paying the mortgage on 6014 and then she stopped paying the mortgage on 6014 and claimed in her inventory she was paying, but I am certain she is paying attorney fees instead.  Law firms like Fischel and Kahn do not work for free and they do not have a pro bono department: a friend called and was turned away.  “Times are tough,” she was told, et al.  Ironically, I talked to attorney Peter Schmiedel about hiring him in October/November 2009 and his firm declined to take my case.  I watched him defend for Elizabeth on the Lydia Taylor case and was impressed.  In fact in that case he argued the Struck case to get his client visitation: in the Sykes case he attempted to use it to stop me from associating with my mother.
I don’t like JD’s tactics, but I am mad as hell at the trickery used by Cynthia Farenga, ADam Stern, et al.  I don’t think JD is trying to influence any person as the Probate Court has dug in and is sanctioning this lawlessness.  I also thin that we need to be civil and present the “truth” the “facts’ in a professional manner.  Name calling is childish: the documents speak for themselves.
Cynthia Farenga, Adam Stern, Peter Schmiedel have spent a lifetime over the past three years defaming and discrediting me, attorney Kenneth Ditkowsky and even JoAnne Denison: it is their cottage industry of ‘business-as-usual’ sanction by the Court.  That said, at least JD is publishing the transcripts, documents filed with the court and proven over and over again that there are and were not Sodini notices and therefore, the Court has held proceedings without jurisdiction.  The orders are void.  There is no guardianship and that is what is important.
Show me the proof and I will present in a reputable forum, but CF, AS, PS cannot provide one ounce of evidence.  They got the court to deny me a right to have witnesses or bring evidence to the attention of the court, meanwhile they’ve froze my assets, stole my homestead and a good portion of my property of my estate and the worse thing, they won’t let my mother see or talk to me and have perpetrated undue influence on her that is damming.  They’ve told my mother that I ‘abandoned’ her and that I ‘stole’ her home, her property, and all her money.
I will be filing documents tomorrow, and at the end of the week, and next week too.  There was and is no Sodini notices and Cynthia Farenga, Adam Stern and Peter Schmiedel know this.  No one is trying to ‘influence’ the ARDC or the Court.  We just want an honest investigation.  The truth leaves tracks and it’s time to go down the rabbit hole.  Unfortunately for Cynthia Farenga, Adam Stern and Peter Schmiedel and Deborah Jo Soehlig and Amanda B, and Joel Brodsky, what respectable investigators will find will bit each one in the ass — the truths will also save my mother’s life.  That is all I care about.
Does anybody want to join me in saving my mothers life?  Saving her life will save the lives of thousands of innocent elders and disabled people!
JD take my name off of and take Cynthia Farenga’s name off the document you wrote.  Now you have a template for any victim or hero to use in cases like the Sykes case.  It’s just that a template.
God bless us all.

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

Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 15:19:23 -0700
Subject: Re: Joanne Denison’s Contrived “Motion to Dismiss/Non Suit for Lack of Sodini Jurisdiction”

Thank you for your comment directed to Ms.Denison.
No attorney can ever stand quietly when he believes that an injustice is being done.    It is my opinion that you are misconstruing Ms. Denison’s actions and postings and thereby doing her an injustice.   What we have in the Sykes case is a situation in which a senior citizen has been deprived of her liberty, her property, civil and human rights in complete derogation of the ‘Rights of Man’ and the United States Constitution.   (The Illinois Statutes and Probate Act also are violated)
What has happened in the Sykes case is beyond belief – In point of fact any fair minded person looking at the record, reading the transcripts etc would remark:  “HOW CAN THIS OCCUR IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.”  (I believe that you and your organization have expressed this sentiment and have worked to attempt to allievate this terrible fiasco)
In fact anyone looking into the case has to notice on day one that the case is not only unusual but basic civil rights were and are ignored.  The Illinois Legislature in order to address the issue of seniors being railroaded into unwanted and un-needed guardianships set up some jurisdictional criterion.
From day one the two Guardian ad litem (i.e. Ms. Farenga and Mr.Stern) ignored the jurisdictional criterion and it appears joined the plenary guardian in actions which in my opinion are deplorable and unconscionable.  If you want a taste of what was promulgated read a random three or four of Gloria Sykes’ e-mails.
The net effect of the actions taken by the GALs and the plenary guardian has been to deny not only Mary of her rights, but Gloria Sykes as well.   What is particularly interesting is the fact that what was done was done without jurisdiction.   Required basic jurisdictional steps have been routinely ignored.   The one jurisdictional challenge was by me and it was successful.
Ms. Denison has requested Ms. Farenga to do what a lawyer (or judge) should have done on Day one – as there is no jurisdiction – ask for dismissal of the case.  In my opinion it is a procrustean application of political correctness to suggest that requesting a court appointed GAL to correct a mistake (whether intentional or not) is not entirely appropriate.  Is  Ms.Farenga  such an ‘august person’ that like the queen of England it is treason to suggest that she cannot be wrong?   I do not think so.    Moreover – drafting a document so that Ms. Farenga can effortlessly correct the problem of lack of jurisdiction and continued violation of Mary Sykes’ civil rights is also entirely appropriate.
No one ever said or posted (or implied ) that Ms. Farenga attorned, agreed, or signed the documents that Ms. Denison prepared.   In fact Ms. Farenga refused to participate in the remediation.    In fact Ms. FArenga refused to participate in the call for an honest, complete and comprehensive investigation of the Sykes case.   We ‘peons’ do not understand such complexities.   All we understand is it is wrong to deny grandma of her liberty and property.   It is wrong to attempt to intimidate.   It is wrong to bear false witness.   It is wrong to loot grandma’s estate.   We do not accuse Ms. Farenga, Mr. Stern, or even Ms. Troepe of anything – all we ask is for an honest, complete, and comprehensive investigation.
Instead of the necessary investigation that will vindicate the Sykes family, the Sykes neighbors and the Sykes friends, we have gotten intimidation in the form of sanction motions (now moot and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction), complaints to the disciplinary boards, and violations of our First Amendment Rights.  One of the attorneys retained by Gloria Sykes pointed out that every attorney has been threatened with disciplinary proceedings and possible loss of his/her license.   Even the Gulag of Russia were not that brazen!  The brown shirts were more subtle!   (yes I know you are part of choir – but a lawyer has to pompous – it is part of the definition)
It is unfortunate but the Sykes case is not isolated or unique.  The September GAO report details a bunch of similar cases and people writing to blogs have reported even more.    Mr. Wyman published a book concerning his mother’s experiences and several other have started blogs.  I am starting to avoid railroad crossings and I check the showers to make certain that water is the liquid that is being delivered.
Let me leave you with the parting thought:  If Cynthia Farenga is in good faith she has nothing at all to fear from an honest complete and comprehensive investigation hy law enforcement.    If Cynthia Farenga is in good faith she is aware that the Sodini protections of the probate act were not afforded Mary Sykes and therefore as they are jurisdictional she will either sign the documents drafted by Attorney Denison or draft her own so as that Mary Sykes can be free and Gloria Sykes can get her life back.

Ken Ditkowsky

From: Michigan Advocacy Project <>
To:; Kenneth Ditkowsky <>; JoAnne M Denison <>
Sent: Wednesday, August 1, 2012 4:14 PM
Subject: Re: Joanne Denison’s Contrived “Motion to Dismiss/Non Suit for Lack of Sodini Jurisdiction”



Along with readers of the “marygsykes” blog, National Association to Stop Guardian Abuse-e-group members and numerous other recipients of the email (below), I have read your recent display of defamatory sarcasm against one of several attorneys involved in Mary G. Sykes’ guardianship proceedings.  Despite your intrepid, illusory wordsmithing, I “see through your brain like I see through the water that runs down my drain.”  *

You have been attempting to influence the course of probate and attorney disciplinary proceedings in less-than-admirable ways.  (Purportedly, due to lack of “standing” with the court at this time, you cannot file the “Motion” you wrote and the Illinois Registration and Disciplinary Commission (IARDC) is investigating a complaint about your professional conduct.)  While some people might suggest that you have every right ‘under the U. S. Constitution’ to declare and foster denigrating opinions about others to the world, without consequence, I disagree.  Regardless of your views about the court’s ‘jurisdiction’ and authority to supervise this vulnerable person’s care and estate, intentionally ‘putting words in someone else’s mouth’ to intimidate or coerce that person (‘official’ or otherwise) into taking an action that s/he has not elected to take independently is ethically unsound.  More specifically, were your intentions true, you might have simply called Cynthia Farenga, Attorney/GAL, on the phone and discussed your idea – or written a proper letter to her – or made an appointment at her office.

Perhaps you have taken a mini-course in Anti-Defamation Law and hope to outwit your perceived legal opponents by writing scathing commentaries, unchecked.  Perhaps you plan to produce a bundle of biased letters for the IARDC, as distractions from attorney conduct issues.  Perhaps you just believe that recklessly libeling anyone who does not vociferously agree with you or your legal protégé du jour is ‘OK’; I don’t.  (If I had not read my phrases on the “marygsykes” blog, extrapolated without context or permission, I might have reserved comment at this time.)  A ‘for entertainment only’ disclaimer on a blog entry does not suffice when misrepresenting the intentions of others in print, no matter how imaginatively.  “Entertainment” like this is bad for guardianship victims and their families, everywhere.

I am copying Ms. Farenga with this letter; please do not construe this common courtesy as an expression of allegiance toward any party or the court.

Lucinda P. Lambert

* Bob Dylan, “Masters of War”

P.S.  Kenneth Ditkowsky originated the Denison email.  As NASGA’s Moderator passes Mr. Ditkowsky’s emails through the e-group, this so goes this “Reply All,” with exception of Ms. Farenga.

From JoAnne:

Sorry, but with my own blogs I don’t follow the one above.  No offense.  Just no time.

BUT, I did respond to Lucinda as follows:

Dear Michigan Advocacy Project

I can answer that.  You know, I really hate to do all the typing work to get all my pleadings done.  I would like someone to type up all my Motions, Notices of Motion, Certificates of Service.  Ken will attest to the fact, it just drudgery.  I like typing the argument best and reading and using the cases.  The rest is well, busywork.

Cynthia Farenga asked me for help.  She said she had no one to help her because “there were too many conflicts”.  There aren’t because as officers of the court, we have to ensure that everyone’s constitutional rights are attended to.

The post makes it clear that I am helping Cynthia out and I did the document for her to help her out. She needs help.

Um, this is a blog.  There is no “public defamation.”  I did not call another atty any per se defamatory names such as slut, whore, addict, etc.  Did you know that courts are starting to say even calling someone gay isn’t defamatory?

In any case, you seem to have a lot of anger, but not a lot of direction, and certainly not anything much legal to say.

Blogs, the news and all sorts of publications are protected by the First Amendment.

Further, you seem to ignore the fact that I know Gloria, I know the family and I know what I am saying to be true.  And why are you trying to protect poor CF and the Ill. ARDC lawyer.  Do you think they are toddlers wearing their Tinker Bell pull ups?

They can deal with what I say.  And in any respect, it’s not particularly scathing.  With respect to the average journalism out there you see on the evening news, cable and what not, I’m pretty Marvin Milktoast.

But if it gets you reading, go for it!

thanks for emailing me with your concerns.  i do appreciate your reaching out.  I don’t know if I can answer all your emails because I’m busy protecting Mary and Gloria, but we’ll see if I can help you out too.



PS–And what kind of an Advocacy project are you when you promote courts that operate without due process, constitutional protections for years.  You need to think about this before you seek to “help” people.
PPS–I’m not sure I understand your concerns that I am “improperly influencing” a bunch of (corrupt) attorneys?  I really don’t get that.  I think you can improperly influence someone of limited or fragile mind, such as a child (not my kids, they were all smart alecks and brats), but an adult?  an attorney? are you kidding?  CF last I looked was a big girl.  And Leah Black at the ARDC is a big girl too.  What you said is kind of insulting to them, in a way.  I hope you see that.  It’s as if you’re assuming someone snatched their brains away and we should all protect them for that.  Hmmm maybe you do have a point, but not in the way you might have thought.  Peace.

PPPS–any psychologist and linguist will tell you sarcasm is a valid, useful and necessary form of communication in any society.  It’s only teachers that don’t like it because it makes the whole class laugh.

—– Forwarded Message —–
From: marygsykes <>
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 8:33 PM
Subject: [New post] For Cynthia Farenga–Motion to Dismiss/Non Suit for Lack of Sodini Jurisdiction

New post on marygsykes

For Cynthia Farenga–Motion to Dismiss/Non Suit for Lack of Sodini Jurisdiction
by jmdenison
Dear Readers;
Below inline and via a link you can find the entitled motion I sent to Cynthia today.
We are all hoping she will file this motion and do the right thing.
If it were me, I would hate to do it, but I would do it.  I have had to do this before, and it’s a killer thing to do, but an atty has to explain to the client why s/he will dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, and then do it.
It’s horrible.  It’s a do over or start again, but it MUST be done.
Let’s wait and see what happens.  If she does it, it will most likely be the end of this blog.
PS – if Cynthia does not do it, I will send another to Gloria and then to Kathy and then to whomever is an “interested party” to attack that jurisdiction.  This is a serious, constitutional, due process flaw in the case ab initio.
PPS – the link:
link to exhibits:
Attorney Code _____________
In Re the Estate of
Mary G. Sykes,
An Alleged Disabled
No.: 09 P 4585
Hon. Jane Louise Stuart
To: See attached service list:
Please take notice, that on _August 1, 2012, the undersigned will appear before the Honorable Judge Jane Louis Stuart or any judge sitting in her stead in the courtroom usually occupied by her in Room 1814 of the Richard J Daley Center, Chicago, Illinois, and present the attached EMERGENCY MOTION TO DISMISS/NON SUIT FOR LACK OF SODINI JURISDICTION, and true and correct copes of which are attached hereto and served upon you.
Cynthia Farenga
Guardian Ad Litem
Prepared By:
Cynthia R. Farenga
1601 Sherman Ave, Suite 200
Evanston, IL 60201
Phone 847 475-1300
Fax 847 866 8885
Attorney Code #14,867
In Re the Estate of
Mary G. Sykes,
An Alleged Disabled
No.: 09 P 4585
Hon. Jane Louise Stuart
This motion is brought by Guardian ad Litem Cynthia Farenga (“Farenga”) pursuant to Probate Code 735 755 ILCS § 5/11a(f) requiring written Notice for any Hearing on Guardianship be provided by the Petitioner in the matter to all close relatives (as defined by the Probate Act) and served no less than 14 days in advance of the hearing.  The onE and only necessary ground for this motion is that Petitioner, Carolyn Toerpe, and her attorneyS of record, failed to serve ANY close relatives as required under this Probate Code section with ANY written form of notice 14 days in advance of the hearing date, as declared in the attached pleadings recently brought to my attention.
The grounds for this motion are:
1.      The Illinois Probate Act 755 ILCS § 5/11a:
(f) Notice of the time and place of the hearing shall be given by the petitioner by mail or in person to those persons, including the proposed guardian, whose names and addresses appear in the petition and who do not waive notice, not less than 14 days before the hearing.  755 ILCS § 5/11a. (Emphasis added).
2.     The Illinois Probate Act define the required notice be served upon adult children     and siblings of the Respondent.  In the above case, Mary G. Sykes has two adult     sisters, Ms. Yolanda Bakken and Ms. Josephine DiPietro, as well as a daughter     Gloria Sykes who should have been served under 755 ILCS § 5/11a.
3.     Attached is a declaration, Exhibit A, from one of the elder sisters, Ms. Bakken,     attesting to the fact that she was not served in accordance with 755 ILCS § 5/11a     (f).
4.     Attached hereto is a second declaration, Exhibit B, from the adult daughter Ms.     Gloria Sykes (“Gloria”) attesting to the fact that she was not served any Notice of     Hearing on Petition as provided for in 755 ILCS § 5/11a(f).
1.     The case, In re Sodini, (cite) (Exhibit C, hereto), makes it clear that these notices are     jurisdictional in nature and must be served strictly in compliance with the procedure     set forth by the Illinois State Legislature.  In Sodini, the adult sisters were not served with proper notice and the case was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.  (Cite).
2.     WHEREFORE, I respectfully request that
a.     The above cause of action be dismissed/non suited for lack of jurisdiction;
b.     All orders, including an Order to invalidate Ms. Gloria Sykes’ Power of Attorney be voided Ab Initio.
c.     All orders freezing Gloria’s assets be voided Ab Initio
d.     Mary be allowed to freely return to her home.
e.     Carolyn Toerpe be barred from conducting any mental or psychological examination on Mary G. Sykes.
f.     Carolyn Toerpe be permanently barred from ever filing an Illinois CCP 211 or its equivalent until further order of the court and for good cause shown, bearing in mind she instigated, continued and fomented a Probate Cause lacking jurisdiction since December 7, 2009 or nearly three (3) years, causing great harm, stress and hardship to Mary G. Sykes and her immediate family;
g.     And for any additional relief and remedies deemed proper by this honorable court.
Cynthia Farenga, GAL to Mary G. Sykes
Prepared By:
Cynthia R. Farenga
1601 Sherman Ave, Suite 200
Evanston, IL 60201
Phone 847 475-1300
Fax 847 866 8885
The undersigned herewith certifies that a copy of the foregoing Pleading entitled MOTION TO DISMISS/NON SUIT FOR LACK OF SOLDINI JURISDICTION/LACK OF PROPER NOTICE OF HEARING ON PETITION FOR GUARDIANSHIP was served upon the following parties on this ___ day of July, 2012 by the methods noted below:
Mr. Adam M. Stern
111 W Washington St, #1861
Chicago, IL 60602 via USPS first class mail (postage prepaid) and email
Mr. Peter Schmeidel
Ms. Deborah Soehlig
Fischel & Kahn Ltd
190 S. La Salle St, E 2850
Chicago, IL 60603
via USPS first class mail (postage prepaid) and email
Ms. Gloria Sykes
6014 N. Avondale Ave
Chicago, IL 60631 via USPS first class mail (postage prepaid) and email
Cynthia R Farenga

From Gloria today—

To: “” <>,Date: Aug 1, 2012 1:41 PM

If you all will please note my mother wants to die in her home, not the home of an named abuser.  It is her wish and like my father, she has that right.  All of my father’s care for the last two months of his life was paid for by either medicare or blue cross blue shield. No money was spent from his healthy estate and my mother didn’t have to pay one dime.  But then, the POA for Health Care naming me was like the petition for an order of protection my mother had verified by the State, was ignored.  Apparently and according to Toerpe, mother’s only wishes and dreams are the wishes and dreams Toerpe has for her — and as long as she and her partners in this crime financially benefit.  It’s sad when evil so obvious is ignored by the men and women of law enforcement who, by the way, are paid from our tax dollars.  Another words, they work for us and therefore, they should respond to our request.  In any event, this legal document the POA of Health Care is just another example of the competency and determination of my mother to free herself from the abuse and neglect Toerpe began to perpetrate upon her as started in 2005 when Toerpe took my mother to attorney Michael Hagerty and they worked together to draft a document that would confuse even another attorney at first sight, let alone a 85 year old woman.  That 2005 naked trust was vacated and a new will was generated, but Toerpe kidnapped my mother on June 30, 2009 with the help of retired Judge Gloria Coco and deputy sheriff at the Harrison Street Court and never served with the petition for guardianship, mother was denied legal counsel, was denied the right to pursue the order of protection petition against Carolyn Toerpe, and was denied her right to contest the guardianship: she was however, placed in the custody and care of her named abuser and financial exploiter and everything Toerpe did and is doing, Cynthia Farenga and Adam Stern is or has accused me of.  No evidence is needed and the evidence against Toerpe is swept under the table for a nice fee, I am certain.  

No person in the wrong can stand up to me, a woman in the right who keeps on a comin’!!!!  Of course, Cynthia Farenga, Adam Stern and Peter Schmiedel are probably planing another ambush where they get Sheriff Dart’s deputies to handcuff me to a chair and threaten my freedoms and liberties and spit on our Constitutions as if they are trained dog-fighting Pits.  Of course, all of these criminal acts and treasons against our Constitutions are sanctioned by the Court, by Judge Jane Louise Stuart and also, Chief Judge T. Evans.  And obviously Sheriff Dart’s deputies were given permission to aggressively remove me from my homestead based on a letter written to the lawyer for Dart’s outfit by attorney Peter Schmiedel who reported that there were not pending legal actions and that the stays in the bankruptcy court for the Homestead and equity were lifted.  That Sheriff Dart knowing his men were in the wrong has not done anything to correct the problem says that he is a hypocrite, too.  He spoke before at least 100 law enforcement and elder care men and women in 2010 and said he was prepared to do what is necessary to stop abuses of the elderly: in the Sykes case he is a co-****.

Gloria Jean Sykes 
Bon Ami Productions, Inc. 

773.631-9262 (fax and office line)
[edited for typos only].

Subject: RE: Sykes case FW: [marygsykes] Please moderate: “A Motion to Dismiss/Non Suit for 09 P 4585 prepared just for Gloria”
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 15:56:42 +0000

Attached please find the copy of the note Cynthia Farenga faxed to Judge Stuart.

see links at:     

Also note in the letter she states that my mother is not living in her home: this is true because Toerpe kidnapped her on June 30, 2009.  I have a August 2009 digital audio recording of my mother asking me to pick her up and bring her home.  When I came to pick mother up, Toerpe had hid her at a McDonalds.  Kathie is witness to this horror.  I will make available the hour + visit digitally recorded for publication after I file the reply brief tomorrow.  Again, you will note how competent and rational mother is.  Toerpe, however held mother in a chair and would not let her up to move around.  Fred Toerpe kept his hand on her shoulder.  Again, Kathie witnessed this.  Toerpe and my mother was aware I was taping and Toerpe’s reply was, “It won’t make any difference”. This is evidence enough that the guardianship was a done deal.  I’ve been denied the right to bring evidence into the court of my mother’s extreme competency.  That said, I will make it public by the weeks end and I ask that all people post and cross post.  I will provide you with a series of photographs of my mother and me to lay over the top if anyone wants to put the visit on youtube. That said, it’s haunting.  It’s haunting.  The police were called and there was nothing they can do.  They found my mother hiding at McDonald’s under Fred Toerpe’s custody.  The police report found mother lucid but ‘confused’.  I’d be confused too, as Mother hadn’t been to a McDonald’s in over 50 years!  

Attached to the note from Cynthia Farenga is a copy of the POA for medical care.  The document was filled out by my mother in front of attorney Mr. Lippman, (he gave her the form: she met with Lippman on 25 June 2009 and vacated the 2005 trust and named her friend Marlene Kroll executor) and it was witnessed by neighbor and long time friend, retired LT from Chicago Fire Department, Chuck Maderer.  Kelly Yost notarized this document.  An affidavit by Chuck is also attached.  All of this can be posted as a reminder that the truth leaves tracks.  

That the Court sanctions these criminal acts against the elderly and disabled are crimes beyond comprehension.

Gloria Jean Sykes 
Bon Ami Productions, Inc. 

773.631-9262 (fax and office line)
[edited for typos only]

Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 08:09:26 -0700

“The Sodini notices were never served on my Aunt Yo, Aunt Jo, or me, and at no time was there a scheduled guardianship hearing: Carolyn Toerpe was appointed guardian based on an agreement between her and Cynthia Farenga and Adam Stern:: my mother was not present, but when she was present in court, she objected to the guardianship.  Cynthia Farenga when asked admitted my mother objected to the guardianship.  Cynthia Farenga also admitted my mother had not been served the 14 day notice: this acknowledgement was faxed to Judge Connors on or about August 26, 2009 and signed by Cynthia Farenga.”
Rather the vilifying everyone in sight – the expenditure of the same amount of time generates a Motion to dismiss using the above quote.    What is the big deal?
In the upcoming ARDC hearing I will want you to testify as to the quoted facts. If you have a copy of the acknowledgement I would like it.
Ken Ditkowsky
I am leaving out one email from Gloria because it goes on and on over and over about how I am not her attorney and I don’t represent her.  While I have patiently explained to her before that it is obvious from the blog, there is already a disclaimer to that effect, her thoughts somehow get stuck on that topic on a fairly  regular basis.  So for the 100th time, I can’t represent a client and do a blog. It’s not possible.  I am doing the blog as an attorney, an officer of the court, and as a member of the press because my blogs and cross posts are nearly up to 10,000 views since November of 2011.  What is on this blog may or may not be in the court files.  Blank, unsigned and unstamped pleadings posted on this blog should be further researched unless the are clearly labeled as found in the court’s files.

And believe me, this is much, much shorter than what Gloria wrote.  Saved you all time!

Form to get any Probate case dismissed for lack of Sodini Jurisdiction or proper Notice to Close Relatives

Dear Readers;
One of the things I have noted by listening to dozens and dozens of probate case is, as in the Sykes Probate case, the court seldom or never asks the following questions to properly attain jurisdiction over the Respondent (alleged disabled person).

Illinois law requires 1) the Petitioner 2) must serve written notice (by mail or personal delivery) to 3) close relatives (defined as adult parents, children AND siblings) 4) informing each of the date, time and place of the hearing.
If this is NOT done, it is a serious and fatal flaw, and the case MUST BE DISMISSED OR NON SUITED, and the Petitioner and court MUST START OVER.
So, how do you do that?  With an emergency motion.  An emergency motion is one that is defined as one that is not on the court’s regular calendar and was not served with notice either 2 business days in advance when served by personal delivery or 7 days when served by regular mail.  The court does not currently accept email service, but many litigants and attorneys don’t mind or they prefer email service and that’s okay–as long as you have a written agreement to that effect.

But an Emergency Motion is entirely appropriate for someone living under a guardianship where every day of freedom counts.  That means all you have to do is file with the clerk’s offices, drop off that pleading with the court (bring a stamped courtesy copy for the judge to the court room and put it on the docket there)  the day before, fax or email it the day before and bingo, you should be able to get relief in court the very next day!  Be sure to let the Respondent know, and any attorneys that have filed an appearance.  The attys can be served by email or fax, but confirm with a phone call and tell them it’s very important to get over to court ASAP.  Generally, with a filing like this one, the judge will be asking to get on the phone any atty that has not showed up and s/he will wait for them to show.

Jurisdiction is a very serious matter folks, and it leads to malpractice suits against all the attorneys involved, the guardian ad litem and even the judges.  Jurisdiction has to be fixed swiftly and immediately.

for the link to a PDF version of the form:

for the link to the WPD version of the form

for the link to an RTF version of the form: