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 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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
 Circuit Court Clerk, Ms Dorothy Brown has been subpoenaed – a copy of the subpoena is attached hereto and made part hereof.
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
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
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 16:35:30 -0700
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
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.