Calls on Gloria to do the right thing and file a Motion to Dismiss/Nonsuit

Apparently Gloria has some reservations regarding filing the Motion to Dismiss/Non Suit, even though it is very necessary and inimical to the proper administration of justice in Mary Sykes’ Guardianship case.
In this case Ken is encouraging her to use my draft or write her own–neither will matter.
Of course, those of you that know Gloria, know that she believes she must put per personality into any writing, so let’s see what she comes up with.

It’s okay to be better than me, Gloria!  I don’t mind.
JoAnne

From Ken Ditkowsky

Gloria rewrite the motion but file it.  …[edited for extraneous information]
Let us get on the next step:
“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 Cnnors on or about August 26, 2009 and signed by Cynthia Farenga.”
I understand that the guardianship hearing was dated December 2009  – there is a gap between August and December.
The usual procedure is that when you file the original petition, there is a hearing date set.  This is the reason that the Court has ignored the oral statements and avoided the Sodini issues.    The movant then and there serves a copy of the petition on the alleged incompetent and the close relatives.   (this passes the test of Sodini).   A hearing is held on the date that is scheduled or on a subsequent continuance date.
In the Sykes case, the ccp 211 was not filed with the petition and no hearing date could be set and apparently none was set.   The petition did not disclose the close relatives and therefore was also defective.   The entire guardianship scam was intended to avoid for Carolyn an embarassment of a protective order and most importantly the return of the funds and property from the safety deposit box.   In fact Carolyn did not desire a hearing and when she placed the petition for service on Mary she intentionally gave a cook county address knowing that she had taken Mary to live with her in DuPage County.
In late August 2009 the Court was getting impatient with the fact that there had been no CCP 211 filed rather than dismissing the proceeding did something very strange.   She asked Carolyn’s attorney as to the lack of a certificate of incompetency.  She was told by Carolyn’s attorney that Mary’s doctor refused to sign.   Then our ‘unbiased judge’ made the famous statement to the effect that Carolyn ought to go out an find a doctor who was willing to prostitute himself. (Of course she did not use those words – but the meaning was clear!)
Immediately thereafter Mary was bench served.   I have assumed that the bench server duly read her all the statements required, including the fact that she was entitled to a lawyer.    Mary requested a lawyer – however, GAL Adam Stern thwarted that effort! GAL Cynthia Farenga and Carolyn’s lawyer were upset that Gloria might use the Lumberman settlement to help her mother and therefore the TRO fiasco was successfully commenced and Gloria’s rights were violated.
Mr. Schmiedel disclosed these facts to a judge, who just ignored them.  Mr. Stern attempted to avoid the issue entirely by a bold assertion that Gloria (and/or her attorney) had agreed to the guardianship of Carolyn.   Gloria cut him a new GM with her outrage at the alleged frugality with the truth.   However the fact remains that Mary was denied a hearing by the agreement of GAL Adam Stern, GAL Cynthia Farenga, and Carolyn.    |
As I understand it these are the facts!   Gloria if they are true let us bring them to Circuit Court’s attention and move to dismiss the proceedings for lack of jurisdiction.   Then, move forward with appropriate lawsuits to 1) obtain the work product stolen from you during the forcible entry and detainer action, 2) obtain remediation for interference with you repairs to you home, etc etc.
This case has gone on long enough.   We have called for a law enforcement investigation as the civil rights of everyone are being abused when a Court continues to enter orders without jurisdiction.   What is occurring in the Sykes case is the nadir of the jurisprudence and is rightly called the “SON OF GREYLORD!”
Gloria  – or anyone else – correct any of the facts that I have wrong.  Farenga claims “truth” is on her side.   OK when were the notices sent out?   When were they received?   When was the hearing held?   Who was present?   Who testified?  Ms. Black in the Request to Admit denied that a hearing was not held?   The docket does not show a hearing and no one seems to know about it other than Ms. Black. Maybe the Sodini compliance’s were all accomplished in a parallel reality – how do be access that reality?
Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s