Dear Lucinda–explaining your lack of privilege

Dear Lucinda;

Today I received a very nice letter from you thanking me for all my efforts to help Mary (not).

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwc2RHNFhUSFV5YWs

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwc2RHNFhUSFV5YWs

I would love to help you with your endeavors to wipe your name and the Michigan Advocacy Project from the face of the earth, but I just don’t have the time, ability, interest or motivation. (just kidding).

I publish emails I receive from Ken, and if he makes some good points about Probate, I publish them, from whatever source, bearing in mind that that newsworthy content is the name of the game.

I absolutely have no idea what you are having a problem with.

For some reason, people think that if they put a disclaimer against “accidental or intentional disclosure of private information” that it creates a legal privilege.  It does not.  Only attorneys, clergy and your CPA in Illinois have that privilege and it can be waived by public disclosure.  Ken is not your attorney.  I am not your attorney.  Who ever passed the email without your permission is the person you need to stop emailing and you need to complain to her or him assuming they have signed a confidentiality agreement with you or hold a statutorily created privilege.  I don’t have that with you, nor does Ken.  If you make a disclosure to someone you do not have a confidentiality agreement with, they are free to pass it on to whomever they want.

Accordingly, I am not negligent to you.  I hold no duties with respect to you, negligence, malfeasance, misfeasance, or otherwise. What legal theory exactly ARE you using?  Right to privacy?  You disclosed the statement to someone you had no legal privilege with, nor did he or she sign a confidentiality agreement with them, so please explain exactly what legal theory you are asserting.

I have no need or desire to publish anything you wrote.  Accordingly, you have to point out specifically where on the blog you want your content removed and I will do it.

I am publishing your letter because you sent it to me and I assume you want it published.  You also did not include an email or fax, and well, I only communicate that way because stamps are expensive (just kidding).

You, by running a blog, are a “celebrity” in your field.  You have to accept the fact people will use your name, the things you say on and off your site and pass them on.

Try to be gracious about it instead.

thanks
JoAnne

PS–You don’t have to send me anything certified mail, because I always acknowledge correspondence and respond promptly, often within minutes or hours. That is the only point of certified mail.  Plus while 95% of the mail arrives at its destination in 5 days, the other 5% is delayed or permanently lost.  Email is a better option for you.
PPS–I have no idea why you sent me your letter.  You did not mention any particular blog post that offended you, so I don’t think there is anything to change or remove.
PPS–Thank you for helping people to understand that just because they put the phrase that the information contained therein MAY be considered confidential, it does NOT necessarily create a legally binding duty to keep the information confidential.  You have to have a confidentiality agreement which is signed by the party under the duty.  Otherwise it is only statutory.  That’s why lawyers, clergy and Illinois CPA’s put that phrase on their communications.  Other people copy it and think it does something, (I could name names, but I won’t), but it does not.  Thank you for busting another urban legend us IP lawyers have to deal with all the time that really should be on Snopes.com.  If you want, I can add this info to my website when I get a chance so you will understand how confidentiality, first amendment and news rights work.

PPPS-If you don’t like the blog, please don’t read it.  If the blog upsets you, please don’t read it.  If Ken is passing along your emails or publishing them, and you don’t like that, please don’t email him.  Simple solutions. Also, if you don’t want me publishing your stuff, just put on your emails, not for JoAnne to publish.  What do I care?  the only problem is, some of these threads get soooo long, I might not catch it, so you will have to politely email me and tell me the date and title of the post containing your content and I will summarize it instead–if it’s important, and I assure you that would be a remote rarity.  Again, what do I care?
PPPPS–if you don’t write me again, thank you very much.

Altered court orders, fabricating attorneys, the saga continues

Dear Readers;

While Gloria was kind enough to email me the attached orders today, and of course, she had more than a few choice words for all the shenanigans of the miscreants, she has not provided any commentary for publication–yet.

As you are aware, I was in court on that fateful day, August 16, 2012 when Gloria brought her Motion to Dismiss for lack of Jurisdiction (Sodin), and the miscreants, of course, came up with 3 big lies about it 1) numerous prior court orders existed denying Gloria’s Motion to Dismiss; 2) PS said the issue was taken up on appeal and it was argued and the appellate court affirmed the trial court–big lie no. 2, I published the order dismissing for formating non-compliance–not on the merits and the best one, 3) Gloria’s exhibits and testimony were barred.

Going back to last Thursday, I believe 3 orders were drafted up on those 3 issues 1) the Motion to Dismiss (and Gloria asked the judge to add in the grounds and she did–numerous Motion to Dismiss had been denied; 2) a motion to enter and continue Dr. Shaw’s testimony; and 3) I believe Amanda wanted the judge to issue another order firmly barring all of Gloria’s evidence and testimony.

Orders one and two are linked below:

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwQURkdWVvckQxY0U

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwQURkdWVvckQxY0U

Nothing like the time honored true fashion of if you don’t like what the order said when the parties agreed, just get the judge behind closed doors and get her to alter it.  And do it messily and have two “entered” stamps on it.

Even a grammar school child can forge a parental note with more skill and care than the minimal amount which was taken in this matter to cover up the tracks of their torts by these bumbling miscreants!

And look where they are throwing their excreta?  Right at Judge Connors, who, btw, was sitting in a deposition taken by the ARDC in KD’s complaint.  KD says he got Judge Connors to admit a number of missteps, most likely the deficient Petition for Guardianship not naming all the relatives, the defective service on Mary, etc.  Further he got her to admit she knew about the Sodini case!  Amazing.  Apparently where you can find plenty of manure just back shovel onto someone sitting on the hot seat already.  Nevermind the fact this case has been dancing around in 1804 for nearly 2 years with Judge Stuart and no investigation into jurisdiction then.

JoAnne

PS–Hey Adam, good call on the preamble about the denial of Gloria’s Motion to Dismiss Non suit where it says the issues was brought up on appeal of the Dec 2009 order and the appeal dismissed.  Good job there on the frugality with truth where you had the foresight to leave out the most important phrase “on the merits.”  Good thinking that no one will notice the operative fact that it was dismissed on other grounds, most notably formatting issues and 341 compliance.  Yep, if you’re going to be an expert at misleading the court, always be sure to only write the first half of a sentence and conveniently forget the rest of it.

Of course, when you get caught, the judge might really get ticked off at you and never trust you again, but………

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.)

The Continuing Saga of Courtroom Lies, and more Courtroom Lies and PS and AS spouting them like the Buckingham Fountain–all sparkly with colors and lights too!

Dear Readers;

As you are aware, yesterday, when confronted with the awful truth that 1) There are no “numerous” court orders of denying jurisdiction based upon Sodini notices to close relatives of the guardianship hearing 14 days prior thereto; and 2) there is equally no prior court order barring Gloria from presenting witnesses and testimony at either of the Partition Action OR the Petition to Set Aside the Apportionment Agreement, GAL Adam Stern and Atty Peter Schmeidel were at a loss for words.

I challenged each of them on the way out of the courtroom, with a fresh stack of all court orders–direct from the clerk of court with a dated receipt Aug 16, 3:43 PM– from Jan 2011 to the present to find those court orders.  They chose not to go there.

Following up on Atty Schmeidel’s explanation for Big Lie No. 1 (there are numerous orders denying Gloria’s Motion for Lack of Sodini Jurisdiction and I argued that issue myself on appeal, your honor and the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court on the merits)–at this point Gloria squawks out the word “LIAR”) BUT in support of Gloria, I have to post:

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocweWo0bmRUWXl0aHM

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocweWo0bmRUWXl0aHM\

The order clearly states that the appeal was NOT dismissed on the merits, but due to section 341 compliance (margins and number of pages).  PS was lying to Judge Stuart.  Big lie No. 1.

Judge Stuart in court rightfully admonished GAL Adam Stern he was the “eyes and ears of the court” and she expected him to provide the court order barring Gloria’s witnesses and testimony by the next day, which of course, was today, August 17, 2012 (A day that will reside in infamy).

So Atty Adam Stern emails Gloria early this morning with the attached two orders dated Mar 30, 2012 AND NO WHERE IN THESE ORDERS DOES IT BAR GLORIA FROM PRESENTING ANY TESTIMONY OR EXHIBITS.

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwcTMwYnVLdWtHdWs

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwcTMwYnVLdWtHdWs

Gloria could not be in court on Mar 30, 2012 and she told PS that.  The judge told PS to put a copy of the Order in the mail to Gloria.  He says he did that.  Gloria says she never received it.  Neither PS nor AS can back that up with an email and attachment to her, so I rule that point is moot.  Both of them have enough money for fancy copiers and scanners to send a valid email.  PLUS, PS did NOT attach his certificate of service to Gloria indicating he mailed her a copy of the court order and his exhibit/witness list on 03/30/12.  I give that one a “dead in the water vote”, wouldn’t you?  Let’s see if he mocks up a lie and files it with the court.  I absolutely love after the fact, late mailed Certificates of Service.  They’re fun to rip apart.

And PS and AS email Gloria all the time when they have a scab to pick with her, but that’s beside the point.  Even CF emails me right away when I get her panties in a bunch over something fun I post about her.

Gloria figures since it doesn’t say that, she can’t do that.  But oh, my little buttercup, that is not how the court works.

First of all, if, as PS alleges, Gloria did not exchange a witness list and exhibit list, PS had to either 1) ask the court leave to file a Motion to Bar her Exhibits and Witnesses and give Gloria time to respond to that motion OR 2) he would have to have a prior court order stating “If either party fails to provide a witness and exhibit list to the other party, the party failing to provide the information will be barred by court order to put on any exhibits and witnesses.”

Local Rule 2.1 provides that all motions must be in writing, properly noticed and served upon opposing counsel.  PS got Gloria’s subpoenas by email.  He received his constructive notice of her witnesses.  But he failed to inform the court of that, instead he lied.

KD will agree with this assessment.

PS has no such court order.  And Gloria says she has the emails to PS in which she attached copies of subpoenas for the witnesses she intended to present at the hearing.  Realistically, if she did email PS a copy of her subpoenas by March 30, 2012, then he WAS put on reasonable notice as to her witnesses and exhibits and they should NOT be barred at all.  Further, if he has no timely Certificate of Service for the Mar 30, 2012 order, it’s a total do over.  He knows that.  AS knows that.

Okay, now what do the miscreants do at this point?  Well, they could buffalo Gloria into thinking that she didn’t do what PS did with a clear list filed with the court, yeah, that might work and she had to do it and since it doesn’t say in a court order she CAN put on witnesses, like PS got, then maybe she can’t.  Oh, I’m not an atty and I don’t know, she might think that.  But aw, shucks that pesky KD and JD will tell her nope, that’s not required.  What is wrong with those two–speaking the truth.  They’re not getting paid, why are they soooo mean to us?  We’re just trying to make a few (illegal) bucks!  Darn it all.

I know, we’ll just lie about it. And we’ll lie about it over and over until we convince ourselves and the court.

See the following court order entered in July, 2012 where PS replicates the lie like a bad clone in an Austin Powers movie–

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwS3hSM2g0REVESnM

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwS3hSM2g0REVESnM

see item no. 4 “As Gloria Sykes has been barred from presenting evidence, the parties intend to hold arguments at the end of the hearing.”  (And just when did THAT happen, prey tell?)

Interestingly enough, this order was drafted by GAL Adam Stern who is obviously the obedient b***h boy of PS!  How interesting.  AS and PS know perfectly well on July 6, 2012 that no such order was granted and no appropriate motion filed.  How convenient.  But AS now knows the court is acting without jurisdiction, so he’ll play along as the obedient puppy he is, since both the puppies are peeing on the judge’s carpet and she’s ready to give it a whiz too!

And if you’re all waiting for the piece de resistance today or the highlight, when Gloria or Scott went to court first thing to pick up the 3 orders I saw drafted from about 4:15 pm yesterday, no surprise, but Judge Stuart was off work for the day and her clerk was assigned to another courtroom and no one knew anything about getting orders from yesterday.

TOLD YOU.  And we’re going to try to order the last two transcripts too, but Gloria says she never got a quote for it.  Annie says she never did either.

Another TOLD YOU ALL.  And today’s transcript will go the same path.

Flush that toilet!  It’s right down the hall.

PS–one of the fun things AS did (because he can’t find the order he said existed barring Gloria’s witnesses and testimony), you will note he sends her a hard to read scan.  Oldest trick in the book.  If you can’t read it, here is what it says:

This matter coming to be heard on presentation of (sic) Amended Second Current Account and Disclosure of witnesses and documents and Caroly Teorpe appearing through counsel Fieschel and Kahn, Ltd. and also present GAL Cynthia Farenga also being present and Gloria Sykes having informed the court by fax that she was not appearing, it is hereby ordered that

1) guardian to mail accounting and report to Gloria Sykes this Mar 30, 2012 to last known address;

2) Gloria Sykes has until April 20, 2012 to file and serve any objections to accounting and report;

3) Guardian has to April 27, 2012 to respond to objections and

4) Gloria Sykes has until May 7, 2012 to Reply; and 5) case set for status on objections and Partition report on May 11, 2012 at 10:00 AM
End of Order;

Second Sheet (not numbered 1 of 2 as it should have been)

This matter coming to be heard on disclosure of witnesses and documents in advance of the April 13, 2012 hearing on the apportionment agreement and the court having previously set Mar 30, 2012 as a date for presentation in open court of the witnesses and documents and Carolyn Toerpe through counsel having complied with the order by disclosing witnesses and documents and Gloria Sykes having failed to appear and having failed to comply with the Feb 22, 2012 order directing disclosure of witnesses to be made on March 30 2012 in open court:  It is hereby ordered that

1) April 13, 2012 hearing will proceed at 2:00 pm with witnesses disclosed and documents disclosed by Guardian Carolyn Toerpe.

2) counsel for Guardian shall mail disclosures to Gloria Sykes to her last known address; and

3) subpoena on Kevin Salam is entered and continued to 4/13/12 at 2:00 pm;

4) hearing to proceed on 4/13/12 at 2:00 pm.

End of Order
So where does it say Gloria’s evidence has been barred?  her witnesses barred?

It really looks more like they will deal with that later–and not by barring her evidence, but giving her a chance to put her stuff on after Carolyn’s and more time to disclose.  I think they screwed up in writing up the order, but that’s their problem and not Gloria’s.  Further, both PS and CF lied to the court by not saying Gloria emailed them subpoenas.  It’s really bad when CF emailed Gloria back with an “I’m going to have better witness subpoenas than you, dummy.”

The order from Feb 22, 2013 reads, in it’s pertinent part

“3. The parties shall exchange a written list of the names of the witnesses and copies of any documents to be relied on and/or produced by the parties and their witnesses in open Court by March 30, 2012 at 10:00 a.m.”
Gloria says she emailed copies of the subpoenas to PS and CF, and it seems that should be sufficient.  She has dated email copies.  It appears that if PS and CF did not disclose this to the court in an honest and open fashion, as he should have, the order does not bar her from evidence or witnesses, it does not say the penalty is to bar witnesses (and CF again drafted a typed up order on this, NOT Gloria), then it seems PS should have properly asked for leave to file a Motion to Bar and waited for Gloria’s response which would have been “I already emailed my stuff to you dummy.”

I guess she should have added to her email “And when you go to court on March 30, 2012 don’t lie about it to the judge.”

I presume that PS and CF are attys you just have to tell them not to lie, otherwise they assume the court and any opponent* are fair game.

And the worst part about this is, Gloria says when she emailed a copy of all her subpoenas and witnesses to PS and CF, CF sent a reply email that she had subpoenaed a surprise witness on Gloria–Gloria’s financial advisor.  So Gloria knew that CF got the subpoenas and CF, being supposedly impartial, should have told the judge that and shown the court the subpoenas she received.  PS too, but you know how that goes…

Now for a joke for PS–

On the stand, the tough prosecutor was relentlessly grilling a witness about finding the loot.

The prosecutor asked, “so what did you do after finding the loot in the trunk of your car?”

Answer:  “I did exactly what any honest, law abiding citizen would do.”

Prosector, “So what was that exactly?”

Answer:  “I didn’t think you would know.  I’m not surprised.”

* note Gloria is not supposed to be CF’s opponent.  CF is supposed to be the “eyes and ears of the court” and is supposed to be fair and impartial.  Fat chance (pun intended).

Motion to Show Cause why Sanctions should not be entered against Attorneys Stern and Schmeidel

PLEASE READ OUR DISCLAIMER REGARDING PLEADINGS I HAVE DRAFTED FOR THIS WEBSITE.  IT IS AT THE TOP OF THIS PAGE–CLICK DISCLAIMERS

Gloria, this is dedicated to your bravado today in court.
You go girl!

Atty: Pro Se
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
COUNTY DEPARTMENT, PROBATE DIVISION

In Re the Estate of

Mary G. Sykes,
An Alleged Disabled

No.: 09 P 4585

NOTICE OF  MOTION
To: See attached service list:

Please take notice, that on October 3, 2012, at 2:00 p.m. the undersigned will appear before the Honorable Judge Maureen E. Connors or any judge sitting in her stead in the courtroom usually occupied by her in Room 1814 of the Richard J Daley Center, Chicago, Illinois, and present the attached MOTION TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE ENTERED FOR PERJURY AGAINST PETER SCHMEIDEL AND ADAM STERN, and true and correct copes of which are attached hereto and served upon you.
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

Atty: pro se

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

In Re the Estate of

Mary G. Sykes,
An Alleged Disabled

No.: 09 P 4585

MOTION TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE ENTERED FOR PERJURY AGAINST PETER SCHMEIDEL AND ADAM STERN
NOW COMES Gloria J. Sykes, daughter and interested party in the above proceeding and respondent to a Motion for a Petition to Partition in the above proceeding, (“Gloria”) as it relates to the above Guardianship Estate of  Mary G. Sykes (“Mary”) filing this motion pro se,  and respectfully moves this honorable court to Show Cause why these two attorneys should not be sanctioned for making false, and blatantly misleading statements to the court, namely: 1) that Gloria’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (Soldini) was heard and denied by the court numerous times; and 2) 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.
The facts relating to this motion 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 apportionment of property held jointly 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 dating back to August 2008 and embodied in a court order.
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 comment 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.
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 grounds, but for brief formatting errors (section 341 compliance)–but the court cut her off quickly each time 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) .
11.    Attorney Denison in the hall outside the court, again challenged the two 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.  Atty Denison warned him it wasn’t in the imaging official records and he had better not mock something up or she will figure it out.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully submitted that both GAL Adam Stern and Attorney Peter Schmeidel be brought before this honorable court and be sanctioned for blatantly and unrepentantly making false, misleading and completely untruthful statements to this honorable court, thereby severely prejudicing and obstructing justice in the above proceeding as it relates to Ms. Gloria Sykes.
Ms. 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 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.

The pack of Orders obtained together with the time stamped receipt are attached hereto as exhibit A.

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.

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.  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 professional “cleansed.”  While the miscreants 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 this 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 “Motion to Terminate the Plenary Guardianship” and Appearance were served upon the following parties as noted on December 14, 2009:
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. LaSalel 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

___________________________

 

Exhibit A–The challenge to find the alleged court orders.

All orders from Jan 2011 to present, including dated receipt.

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwRmhldlZPcmVHV2M

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6FbJzwtHocwRmhldlZPcmVHV2M

And note that while in about July 2012 it says Gloria’s witnesses and exhibits are barred, there was no prior court order to that effect.  I was there in July and PS was lying when he put that in that order too!  Gloria tried to tell the court that, but she again was sushed up and told “not to speak”

 

Today’s hearing–Fun and games with lies and more lies.

I really don’t know where to begin with today’s hearing–it was truly amazing.

First of all, and I truly have to congratulate Gloria, she finally filed some version of a Motion to NonSuit or Dismiss based upon Lack of Jurisdiction (Sodini)!  I don’t have a copy of it yet, but I hope she sends it to me soon for posting.

Yeah!  You go, Gloria.

Well, after that first stab with a nice large kitchen knife on the most obvious scab to pick with this court, you wouldn’t believe the out right lies that followed.

First, came the admonition from the Judge that it was her understanding that the issue had been dealt with by the court before, and she turned to Adam Stern and asked him if that was true.

AS replied that it had been brought up numerous times before and it had been denied. (Big lie no. 1)

PS then chimed in with how he brought it up in an appellate brief, he recalled writing the argument, and it was denied on appeal (even Bigger lie no. 2)

Gloria then tried to point out the appeal was dismissed for formatting issues, margins and number of pages, but the court kept on cutting her off and telling her “not to speak”.

The next topic they talked about before, during and after the testimony was PS constantly telling the court that Gloria’s testimony and exhibits had been barred because she did not send them to PS on time. (Medium size lie no.3 I’m giving it a medium on the lie because Gloria should have filed it with the court, she only emailed it, so I’m downgrading the lie.  JMHO)

Again, Gloria was repeatedly shushed up when she tried to counter with she had the dated emails she sent them on time and there was no such court order.  (Go ahead and look at the table of transcripts, documents and orders on this blog.  I don’t even think there was a motion in the file, let alone an order, and all motions by rule must be in writing and proper notice and service must be given).

And of course, you know me.  I just couldn’t resist plunking down $21.75, sweet talking my friend behind the Probate imaging and printing counter in the Probate files department for a current copy of all imaging of orders going back to January 2011 or about 21 months.

Guess what?  No such orders exist!  None.  No orders saying any Motions to Dismiss were filed and heard and denied, and no orders saying Gloria’s testimony and exhibits were barred.  ( I will post the packet in a bit and give anyone $1000 if they can find any such orders).

So, while Gloria was grilling Dr. Shaw a new charcoal crust on his liar’s sandwich consisting of multiple layers of pure baloney (he was testifying he saw Mary in 2012 but she was incompetent in 2008 to sign a settlement agreement after Mary met independently with a lawyer the day before, yeah, right, that testimony can’t be transcribed either), I was downstairs getting a current printout and receipt for all orders entered since January of 2011.

I bring that back upstairs, and have Gloria take it to the bench and present it as a minor “clean up matter” (when in reality it was a load of you know what looking for a fast moving fan).

Gloria proceeds to inform the court she just received a packet of all the court orders going back to January 2011 and there are no orders in there 1) denying any motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; 2) there is no order denying her the right to put on witnesses and her own exhibits.

Gloria says she has the emails containing a list of witnesses and exhibits and it was emailed to PS on time.  If she can find that to show PS is liar, I will post it.

While the Judge did admonish AS that he was the “eyes and ears of the court”, he swore to get the order barring Gloria’s witnesses and exhibits as untimely.  Gloria swore she never got a copy of the order, and I have to believe her because it’s not in the court’s paper file and it’s not on the court’s official imaging system.

Gloria told the judge she had no transcript from the prior court dates because all she gets is excuses when she orders them.  She does not have Shaw’s prior testimony, she does not have the testimony from May, though we have both ordered it.  (She should have made a request for a continuance based upon the fact she could not cross examine Dr. Shaw without a transcript of his prior testimony).

As soon as court was done, I looked for AS (CF wasn’t there due to a “personal matter”), and showed him the pack of orders and challenged him to find those orders in the packet.  He said he didn’t have time, he was busy writing up an order and he couldn’t do two things at once.  He never took up my challenge.  He said he would get it and email it to Gloria and get it to the judge tomorrow.  I warned him not to mock one up either because I’ll figure out how to show it was mocked up.

PS didn’t even bother responding when I challenged him regarding the printout of orders, he just walked on by.

But the piece de resistance for the day?  The ultimate kicker?  First the judge orders all of the attorneys outside the courtroom (this is despite the fact we really weren’t even talking about anything), and then she locks the door!  Amazing.  Even the cute little naive associate Amanda Byrnes who could not be more than 22 or so could not get into the court to get the last order stamped.  The judge kept on mouthing “come back tomorrow” for our orders.

You think we got on her last nerve?

I’m taking bets right now, 2 to 1: a) we never see the transcript from May 2012 or today; b) we don’t get the court orders.

Never mind.  Today I saw 3 orders drafted up.  Gloria initialed one and that was denying her Motion to Dismiss and she made AS put the grounds into it and he added “because it had been brought previously” (okay, that’s totally funny because jurisdiction can be brought up at any time and the court must make a serious ruling on it, despite the fact it’s an outright lie and there is no court order ruling on it prior to this day, with respect to PS’s lie that it was argued on appeal, it doesn’t matter if jurisdiction is brought up on the first or tenth appeal–it is always timely) and I will go back tomorrow to get the court order, then I will send Julia and I hope Scott can try to get copies.  I bet we don’t.  No matter, each of us will draft up declarations that Scott and I saw drafts of 3 court orders and then the court locked the doors and told us to come back tomorrow and when we did that, we were refused copies.

What a legal soap opera.  But you would think the Law Bulletin would catch on to this.  There’s drama, there’s lack of jurisdiction and the law at every turn, we have judges on the record saying they don’t have to follow the rule of law (Connors, August 2011), we have a judge tossing all the attorneys out of court and locking the door behind them without signed court orders, we even have a million dollars missing in gold coins!  Cash taken from a mattress.  A wrongful eviction.  Out of the wrongful eviction a Contempt Order against the Plenary Guardian.

I can’t think of a more compelling, addictive story.

So when did the court say it would consider final oral arguments on the partition motion?  October 3, 2012 at 2pm.  You think the court is avoiding something?

As Sarah Pallin says (and/or Tina Fey), “you betcha”.

And Ken already pointed out to me that it’s interesting how the date was well after his Sept 2 to 3rd date for his hearing on lying.

Who’s been caught lying now.

 

Cynthia Farenga using the Illinois ARDC continues to violate the First Amendment rights of Atty Kenneth Ditkowsky

KD is an honest attorney who knows of the Sykes estate and that it contained $1 million in gold coins, according to his business records!

Attorney Cynthia Farenga, on the otherhand, is an attorney that continues to prosecute the 09 P 4585 probate case against Mary Sykes, where there has been a complete lack of Sodini jurisdiction for THREE YEARS!  In a case clearly lacking jurisdiction, she has participated directly in an ultra vires, evil plan to terrorize Gloria and render her penniless and homeless–all illegally.  She gets the judges to rubber stamp her evil plans.  She goes into the judge’s private areas on a regular basis, presumably to plot and plan.

Read on to Ken’s response:

The core of the American Judicial System is the First Amendment.     The lynch pin of American Freedom is the First Amendment and the right of citizens to speak out.
I do not know who reads the ‘blogs’ but I do know that Farenga and Stern do.    Today I received from the Ms. Black at Illinois ARDC a packet of papers that was about five inches high.    Contained in the packet were a large number of pages that appear to be printouts from the NASGA, Probate Sharks and J Denison authored blogs.    In the packet was also a letter from Ms. Farenga that points out the fact that she wishes the ARDC to stop my protests to the authorities concerning the theft of approximately a million dollars in gold and silver coins from Mary Sykes’ safety deposit box.      She says that I am threatening her with arrest and prosecution.    It is unfortunate, but I do not have the power (jurisdiction) to cause her arrest for her part in the non-inventory of these assets.      Ms. Farenga (and apparently the ARDC attorneys) that she is a judicial official and therefore her conduct and that of Stern is in the same category as the Divinity!     Being such an ‘august person’ being critical of Farenga is ‘ethically challenged.’
As is my policy, my files in connection with the Sykes file and these ARDC proceedings are open to law enforcement – including the United States Treasury Department.    The most recent production by Ms. Black and the ARDC is also open for examination and copying.
The mailing of this packet of material to me at this point in time, and the letters and material contained therein authored by Farenga are a ‘red flag!’    The fact that no investigative report has been produced that the ARDC could have relied upon to make its terrible allegations against me is another red flag.    If I recall, two red flags is a Hurricane Warning.
I’ve copied Ms. Farenga and Mr. Stern on this e-mail as I want them to know that they will not silence me nor will they directly or indirectly stop me from the full exercise of my Constitutional Rights and in particular my First Amendment Rights.      I also want them to know that their characterization of the gold coins as imaginary is wrong and a deception.    There were a large number of gold coins in the safety deposit box and another bunch obtained from Mr. Albert Biddy.    Ms. Gloria Sykes has immortalized the truth of allegation that there were Gold coins in her affidavit filed with the ARDC.     A close relative reported the same in open court.   She described the packet in which they were contained as a ‘bag about a foot in height and six inches wide, filled more than 1/2.     Mary herself made statements concerning the coins.     Had you, Ms. Farenga or you Mr. Stern done your job or cared that you were a fiduciary you would have reported this information to the Court rather than misrepresenting to the ARDC that I was lying!     Indeed, had the ARDC done due diligence it would have brought its disciplinary action against you rather than me.     That fact speaks volumes.
Ms. Farenga, Mr. Stern, and Mr. Schmiedel are fully aware that the final chapter is not going to be written by them or by me, but by law enforcement if they do an honest, complete and comprehensive investigation.     Indeed, as far as I know the Constitution of the State of Illinois and the United States of America is intact and has not been revoked in whole or part.    Similarly the tax laws are still in full force and effect and as at this point in time over a million dollars in taxes, interest, and penalties is due and payable the delinquent taxpayer and those who aided and abetted her in the evasion of the taxes due are culpable.   Ms. Farenga – tell the IRS that the non-inventoried coins are ‘imaginary!’     The fact is they are not and no matter how you shade the truth the United States of America and the State of Illinois are entitled to their tax money.
Let me make this point – I offered Ms. Farenga, Mr. Stern and Mr. Schmiedel to join with the friends and families of the guardian abuse victims and request an honest, complete and comprehensive investigation.    Instead they and apparently certain employees of the ARDC began searching the blogs for anything that they could use to intimidate.     IT DID NOT WORK!      If in fact, Farenga, Stern, Schmiedel et al have nothing to hide, and indeed have done nothing wrong – join with me and the friends, family, and persons interested in Mary Sykes and the persons who are allegedly  being victimized by Court appointed guardians in calling for law enforcement to do an honest, complete and comprehensive investigation of the Mary Sykes case. 09 P 4585.
Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com
GOOD JOB!  and Ken, I am behind you 100%.  I am proud to publish your emails calling for an investigation.  And if you chide or rib the miscreants about wearing orange jumpsuits, that IS your constitutional right.
I hope Gloria files something good in the probate court for tomorrow so this all gets kicked.  I have given her numerous suggestions.  She has affidavits, she has CT’s defective petition for guardianship.

I will be there, rooting for her and seeing if I can use my laptop, again!