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