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.)

2 thoughts on “From Atty Ditkowsky–another call for an investigation and the reasons why

    • I agree with you comment. We know that CT remodeled her home during this time period and she also paid for a very nice wedding for her daughter. While if Mary were competent she might have volunteered to give CT the money for these projects, the operative word is PERMISSION. A gift from a mother to daughter is fine and expected, esp. when the mother is happy in her own home and there are two daughters to care for her.
      But in this probate mess, CT has isolated Mary, a million dollars has disappeared, etc. and it has turned into a quagmire.
      Mary’s directives were to live in her own home and have her daughters care for her there. Gloria was carrying out this directive very well and fine, thank you, but CT just had to go and use greed and evil to get her way.
      How utterly sad for this poor family.

Leave a Reply to jmdenison Cancel reply

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

You are commenting using your 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