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!

enjoy

JoAnne
REMINDER–PLEASE READ OUR DISCLAIMER REGARDING PLEADINGS POSTED HERE
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 THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
COUNTY DEPARTMENT, PROBATE DIVISION

In Re the Estate of

Mary G. Sykes,
A disabled person

Case No.: 09 P 4858

Hon. Jane Louise Stuart

NOTICE OF FILING

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.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

_______________________________
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: gloami@msn.com                                         Attorney Code # Pro Se

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
COUNTY DEPARTMENT, PROBATE DIVISION

In Re the Estate of

Mary G. Sykes,
A disabled person

Case No.: 09 P 4858

Hon. Jane Louise Stuart

REPORT TO COURT
REGARDING HEARING ON AUGUST 16, 2012

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:

FACTS:

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.

WHEREFORE:
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 http://www.marygsykes.com 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.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

_______________________________
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 gloami@msn.com                                                     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

To:

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

________________________________

Advertisements

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