Better News from the Michigan Adovocacy Project–Dr. C is Freed from an abusive guardianship!

Better News from the Michigan Adovocacy Project–Dr. C is Freed from an abusive guardianship!

But don’t get too excited, I understand the ward came in for a 6 month report, and it was pre-arranged to terminate the guardianship. Further, the ward asked for, and was given his own attorney who could negotiate a deal.  Mary has several written notes that she wants a private attorney and to go home, but all those have been ignored by Judges Stuart and Connors.  At one time, GAL Farenga was concerned about jurisdiction, (I have the fax page), but no longer.  She won’t join in the other daughter’s petition to dismiss the guardianship for lack of jurisdiction.

Still no reports of a guardianship terminated on the facts, with the GAL objecting not because the ward was competent and could handle her own affairs OR because the guardianship did not meet notice/due process standards–we are all waiting for a brave attorney to do that case.  Also ripe for a case is a class action wherein all probate court records will be checked for notice to relatives in Illinois and guardianships revoked and attys fees refunded!  I’m waiting for that one.

Article on James F. Chism’s guardianship

James F Chism’s Guardianship terminated!

Subject: Macomb County Guardianship – Revoked

Retired chiropractor returns to being a free man

While the comments pages has been disabled, to thank the paper for publishing this article and ask for more and a full feature article, go to the “contact us” page at the bottom of the page above or home page and send an email to the following:

Publisher of Michigan Group, Jim O’Rourke (e-mail)
Regional Vice President of Sales for Digital First Media in Michigan, Teresa Goodrich (e-mail)
Executive Editor, Richard Kelley (e-mail)
Circulation Director, Mike Muszall (e-mail)
Managing Editor, Ken Kish (e-mail)
Lifestyles Editor, Niky Hachigian (e-mail)
Features Editor, Debbie Komar (e-mail)
Editorial page, Bill Ewald (e-mail)
Online Editor, Bruce MacLeod (e-mail)
Chief Photographer, David Posavetz (e-mail)

You can also call them for a fax number: (586) 469-4510.
Anyone who is serious about being an activist should get an “efax” or “smartfax” to fax directly out of your computer AND do group faxes too!  Computer faxes are about $10 per month plus ten cents a page–cheaper than my postage per month by far!

When the Court’s function properly the rights of senior citizens are protected; however, there are too many cases – such as Sykes, Gore, Tyler, Wyman et al in Illinois – in which the exploitation of the elderly is obvious and no one is interested in even investigating the outrageous conduct that is the hallmark of the protest.    How can an abusive estranged husband be appointed as a guardian of his wife (Wyman)?   How can a mentally ill grandchild – herself lacking competency – be appointed as a guardian (Gore)?   How can a daughter who the alleged incompetent is seeking an order of protection be appointed plenary guardian (Sykes)?    How can a a common thread of large sums of money not being part of the inventory be ignored?

In Illinois we have a comprehensive legislative procedure to protect the elderly from miscreants using the courts to separate a senior from his/her liberty, property, civil rights and human rights.   As illustrated by Sykes the entire procedure was and three years later is ignored.  Indeed, it is unethical (according the ARDC) to complain.    [This letter may generate another ARDC complaint against me even though it is clearly protected by the First Amendment to the United STates Constitution).

What we ‘seniors’ need is for an honest, complete, and comprehensive investigation of this guardianship situation and if it is determined that guardianship is a ruse to under color of statute for miscreants to deprive seniors of their liberty, their property, civil rights and human rights as I am many others have charged the miscreants should suffer the full weight of the law.
I use the word we as it occurred to me that I am a year older than Dr. C.   I use the word we because it appears if the procedure that was followed in the Sykes case is the rule rather than the exception, watch out Mr. Romney and Mr. Obama – there are at least two doctors who have a reputation of finding everyone that they examine incompetent!   Read the August 2009 and August 2010 transcript and the Judge clearly illustrates how we treat these serious cases.

Ken Ditkowsky
http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/

Advertisements

Testing the Mettle of Rockford Probate Court

Dear Readers;

As you are aware, this blog is about helping others in probate court.  Letting everyone know what works and what does not work.  Pleadings, emails and other documents are published here and on other probate blogs (which I might or might not have control over) regarding better tactics to protect YOU and your beloved grandpas, grandmas and the disabled.  These are often the poor of the poor, or they will be after probate court gets to them via a fee for this and a fee for that and often two or more attys churning the bill, liening the paid for family home, the savings that were never used on family trips and vacations and vacation homes, etc.– then granny goes into a nursing home, isolated and never seeing the light of day again.  You will note it is rare to see ANYONE from a nursing home going outside ever again.  And the food isn’t healthy by a long shot. Whole Foods is NOT doing the catering.

Getting back to Probate court in Rockford, after lengthy argument, the court did NOT decide in John Wyman’s favor.  Oh, the record was clear and the court even admitted notices were not served,  but Judge Fabiano said during hearing (and we did have a private court reporter and I do have a record and transcript I will publish ASAP), 1) constructive notice is enough due process for the Wyman family; 2) the entire family knew of the proceeding and did not file anything soon after the fact; 3) laches applied (see my email to SRR below regarding THAT legal theory) and 4) Carol Wyman’s injuries in the nursing home where she was severely beaten and sexually abused could not possibly have been the fault of poorly picking a Guardian that was an infamous abuser in his family and the local community (but she did not explain why that was, SRR and KMT said it was not the right time period, but it is my understanding she suffered at a horrid nursing home–one of the worst in Rockford during the July to Sept. 2009 time period and then she escaped.)

The moral of this story is:  if you don’t like your spouse and no longer have any need or want for them around the house, drug them, take them to a nursing home and get a temporary guardianship over them in court.  When they “awake” from all the drugs and start protesting and want to go home, the nursing home will physically hold them down and shoot them up with Halodol (a drug NOT FDA recommended for seniors due to stress on all the internal organs) and then you will never have to deal with your “spousal problem” again.  And all with the blessings of the Rockford Probate court and 2 court appointed attorneys.  All you have to do is tell all the attys involved that your house is paid for in full.  They will then attack anyone and everyone to get to where they are going.

All this actually happened to Carol Wyman — and more, get the book “Against Her Will” or just email John Wyman for a copy at johnhowardwyman@gmail.com. It’s a 5 star book on Amazon you won’t be able to put down.

So SRR is supposed to draft up an order for the court to sign on Monday. Because I have been involved in, or have heard of, most of the dirty tricks in probate, I was extremely well prepared for the hearing and could shoot down just about every single dirty lie, trick, ruse — you name it, I had the answer for the court.

However, it did not seem to do much good.  SO onto the emergency appeal, soon as I get the order.

Take care all and read the email I sent to SRR below regarding what to put in the order for findings of fact and conclusions of law.

JoAnne

now for my email to Sharon Rudy:

Subject: Court yesterday In re Wyman 09 P 127
Date: Sep 29, 2012 1:04 PM

Dear Sharon;

Please make sure you put in the order tomorrow, the following findings by Judge Fabiano:

1) That the case, In re Steinfield held that notices could be excused if the movant had been significantly involved in the case post appointment of  a plenary guardian (perhaps you can find the page cite for that holding, I could not)

2) that laches applies to defeat a finding of lack of jurisdiction under the Probate Act (I believe that would be new law because laches is an affirmative defense which is only pled as an Answer to a Claim–but maybe the Illinois App. Ct will change that centuries old law, what do I know?)

3) that the Probate Act allows for constructive notice to be served on all “close relatives”.  The notice need not be in writing and it need not be personally served or served by mail.
The sisters were served via phone call to one and that was adequate notice.

4) that John Wyman and William Wyman were represented by the OPG or Heckinger in early July and that excused notice.  (Willaim Wyman was NOT represented by the OPG except early on in the case when the OPG was only defending him and did so successfully regarding the OOP.  The OPG only filed an appearance for that issue and William Wyman will submit an affidavit to the court regarding that issue, but you can put in the order that it was a finding from the hearing because that’s what happened).

5) that the sisters had constructive notice by phone or upon information and belief and statements from KTM that she remembers calling one sister sometime before the hearing.

Yes, I think that those were the most important points that both you and Judge Fabiano made yesterday.

As we discussed, my client is willing to post a supercedas bond pending appeal for half the estimate costs of appealing. Please send me a good faith estimate of those costs which may consist of:  1) utilities, taxes, insurance; 2) an estimate of the FMV of the personal property, which I believe is negligable looking at the inventory list.

If the judge is still interested in awarding sanctions, I would like the opportunity to brief that separate issue, so please put in the order a briefing schedule, ie, 1) when you will submit your motion for sanctions, 2) a 3 week response for me and 3) whatever you need for reply and then set it for hearing.  You can just call me on my cell or text me for hearing dates and let me know what day and time you will be in court to set that.  I believe that is a separate motion that must be in writing, properly served and the respondent is entitled to a briefing schedule.

Also, I did make the statement that the court appeared to making a ruling that “hearsay, innuendo and rumor” satisfied the Probate Court Act notice standards in accordance with Sodini/Steinfeld and you can put that in the order and I don’t mind.

thanks

joanne

A very well drafted letter from Judy Ditkowsky asks, “Why did the GAL’s threatening KDD when all he wants to do is investigate?”

Dear Readers;

Mrs. Ditkowsky has been kind enough to share her very well drafted letter with us on this blog.  In it, the letter asks the most important question underlying the case, why do the GAL’s in a Probate proceeding threaten a third party attorney for merely investigating an alleged wrongful guardianship?

Inquiring minds want to know.

As an attorney, or even an outsider, it doesn’t take much to know that when one is threatened, there is assuredly a fat, thick, scab to pick that probably contains a good amount of pus and infection.  I’m not a criminal atty, but at least I know that one.

Read on for some very interesting news.  I never heard the entire story about the “threats”, I know the ARDC did not want the entire story to come out, so this is very interesting.

JoAnne

Dear Senator ______,
RE:  Attorney SANCTIONED for SEEKING TO PROTECT A NINETY YEAR OLD LADY from severe repression of her civil and human rights!
My husband, Kenneth Ditkowsky, was threatened three years ago, that if he continued to represent the interests of a large group of relatives, personal friends and neighbors in their concern for the ongoing health and safety of a ninety year old lady, he would be hauled before the Court for sanctions and also the Illinois ARDC.  At that point, he had done nothing but investigate what their complaint entailed.  I personally was present in my husband’s office when the two telephone calls in which attorney Peter Schmiedel and Guardian ad litem Adam Stern made these threats, and heard them, because he put the calls on speakerphone specifically so that I would hear them.  Ken had done nothing improper, and therefore threat of attorney sanctions were totally improper.
 However, the threats were not made in vain.  Within a year, Ken had been sanctioned, and within six months thereafter, these same sanctions were vacated by the Appellate Court, as having been issued totally without jurisdiction.  Ken had been ordered (by the Circuit Court which incidentally had no jurisdiction) not to represent the ninety one year old lady and he NEVER had done so.  He had, however, as an attorney bound by the Himmel rule, continued to report violations of her civil rights.  He did so continuously, as there was no evidence that his reports had been taken seriously, and he widened the circle to whom the reports were made.  He also had a responsibility as a citizen to take action for the protection of a person whose rights were covered under Federal Statute and the fourteenth and fourth and fifth amendments to the US Constitution.  He had his own rights under the U.S. and the Illinois Constitution of Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Association, and the Right to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances (the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the first Article of the Illinois Constitution).
 Then step three was taken by attorney Schmiedel and Guardian ad litem Stern, now joined by Guardian ad litem Farenga.  Amazingly, fifteen counts that Ken had misbehaved were brought by the attorney for the administrator of the Illinois ARDC. I use the term misbehaved advisedly.  The fifteen counts met no criterion of specificity.  Under the U.S. Constitution, a defendant has the right to know exactly what he is being accused of, but the attorney for the administrator ADMITTED in her response to the motion to dismiss that she had no idea what lies, deceptions, or interferences with the administration of justice had actually taken place other than that emails had been sent .
 Suffice it to say that the hearing officers attorned completely to the actions of the ARDC and subjected my husband to a hearing.  The hearing officer announced that two days and two days only were allotted to this hearing, and then allowed the prosecution to meander on until after four p.m. on the second day.  Under the U.S. Constitution, how can a defense be limited to less than an hour of a business day, perhaps a hearing going to late in the evening of a weekend day?  Beyond that, apparently there was some “underlying case” which could not be referred to.  The “underlying case” could only have been the matter about which the supposed lies, deceptions and  “interference with justice” were made.
Despite these obstacles, under oath the prosecution witnesses made significant admissions that they did not follow mandated procedures prescribed by state statute to protect the civil rights of their ward.  Furthermore, while each retained the title of Guardian ad Litem after what was a VOID Plenary Guardianship according to the mandatory provisions of the State Statute, neither undertook to actually perform the duties assigned to a Guardian ad Litem, which are to protect the interest of the ward against malpractice by the Plenary Guardian, but instead invented non-existent duties which were to the detriment of their ward. The statement UNDER OATH by Cynthia Farenga was that in most cases the duties of the Guardian ad Litem are over in a few months, while in this case the Guardianship she has been awarded has extended for over three years.  Does this mean that Ken has “interfered” with justice by making it possible for Mary Sykes to remain alive at the age of ninety three, having been kidnapped just before her birthday of nine decades under color of statute, been kept  isolated from her family and friends, and been consigned to “elder day care”, having lost the comfort of her own home and the waste of all her assets?
There are two CD’s, taken a year apart, of Mary Sykes, after her incarceration under false pretenses in a home and daycare center. Neither shows the feeble-minded individual SWORN TO UNDER OATH by attorney Adam Stern. The first was taken a year after the kidnap occurred; the second, shows the ravages of two years spent under hostile conditions; yet Mrs. Sykes is still aware of her situations, her companion(s) and is lucid. In addition, independent observers of  Mrs. Sykes have occasionally seen her at family events and have reported that she has been cogent; there has been no investigation permitted of Guardian Ad Litem’s sworn statement at ARDC hearing, that in his initial interview with Mrs. Sykes, there was no question of her incompetency. Mrs. Sykes is prevented from using the telephone to contact her relatives, but on the very day of the hearing, one was able to speak to her while her captor was not present and Mrs. Sykes was lucid and cognizant of whom she was speaking to (also, she was certainly aware of how to pick up and answer a telephone)  despite her advanced age and the nearly complete isolation from all her family except for the plenary guardian, the guardian’s husband, and the granddaughter and the consignment to a day care center offering no intellectual stimulation, much less rehabilitative activity.
 The General Accounting Office in 2010 issued a report of the nationwide abuses of the rights to life, liberty and property of elderly people.  Has this report been placed into the circular file?  It is up to our elected Senators and Representatives to stand up for the citizens of the United States who have had the nerve to live past the Soylent Green age of thirty and for those who who have had the nerve to care about the rights of their fellow citizens in the face of the actions herein complained of!
 Mr. Ditkowsky has spent untold time, energy and material resources in the fight to free Mary Sykes.  He has exposed, UNDER THE OATHS OF THE PROSECUTION’S WITNESSES in the process of this ARDC hearing, numerous instances of egregious disregard of statutes, court decisions, the U.S. Constitution and the Illinois Constitution.  Under the most adverse of circumstances, his defense was able to show the TRUTH of the statements he has been making.  He was able to bring into evidence even more evidence of the truth of the statements he has been making.
 Nevertheless, the hearing panel did not consider any of this evidence but made their determination before leaving the building, as an order of misconduct was issued first thing the following Monday morning.
 Please be advised that Mr. Ditkowsky has never been accused of mistreating the elderly; he has been sanctioned and his reputation impaired for over two years for OPPOSING the mistreatment of one very feisty and resilient old lady. Isaiah, chapter 58 is quoted yearly at this time that the Lord does not care about fasting and sackcloth when innocents are being abused.  The armada of Government, however, in this case, is being employed to destroy the reputation of one who believes in the words of the Prophets, of the U.S. Constitution and of the Illinois Constitution, federal and state judiciary and laws and statutes.
 I am writing to you in the sincere hope that an investigation into the conduct of this entire matter over a period of over three years will be ordered.  This situation begins with the first attempt to chill any investigation into the circumstances of an almost ninety year old lady, on whose behalf almost twenty friends, neighbors, relative and fellow club members signed a petition and raised money for a retainer to pay my husband to look into the legal issues raised by what then seemed like a miscarriage of justice. It has continued through to the actions of the Attorney Registration and Discipline Committee which refused to dismiss an incompetent Motion for sanctions and in which its hearing officers issued an order of misconduct without taking the time to address any of the evidence allowed into the case as a result of the lines of questions introduced by the prosecution, which showed without a shadow of a doubt that neither the Guardians ad Litem nor the plenary Guardian were appointed in accordance with Illinois Statutes, decisions of appellate ( both federal and state) courts, or decisions of the United States Supreme court, in clear derogation of every free speech, right of association and right to petition for redress of grievances of the government.  Please investigate how this can happen in 2012 in The United States of America!
I apologize for the length and detail of this letter.
Sincerely,
Judith Ditkowsky
Dear Judy;
You have absolutely nothing to apologize for.  I loved your letter.  Tomorrow I am going to try to help John Wyman and test the meddle of the Probate Court in Rockford.  Soon as it is over, I will find the nearest Starbucks and give you all the results.
thanks again for your kind sharing and understanding.
JoAnne

From KDD–Sykes has TWO GAL’s. What are they supposed to be doing and why aren’t they gone in the case?

From Ken, regarding GAL’s and guardianships and jurisdiction
The Court must first determine in every case if it has jurisdiction.   If it has jurisdiction it has inherent powers to address the matters that come before it in the pending “case and controversy.”    The key words are “case and controversy”    After the appointment of a plenary guardian there is nothing more to do except supervise the plenary guardian.
A guardian ad litem functions as the “eyes and ears of the court” and not as the ward’s attorney. In re Guardianship of Mabry, 281 Ill.App.3d 76, 88, 216 Ill.Dec. 848, 666 N.E.2d 16 (1996), citing In re Marriage of Wycoff, 266 Ill.App.3d 408, 415–16, 203 Ill.Dec. 338, 639 N.E.2d 897 (1994). The traditional role of the guardian ad litem is not to advocate for what the ward wants but, instead, to make a recommendation to the court as to what is in the ward’s best interests. Mabry, 281 Ill.App.3d at 88, 216 Ill.Dec. 848, 666 N.E.2d 16. The role of the guardian ad litem is thus in contrast to the role of the plenary guardian of the person appointed pursuant to the Probate Act. Under section 11a–17 of the Probate Act, the plenary guardian makes decisions on behalf of the ward and must, in general, conform those decisions “as closely as possible to what the ward, if competent, would have done or intended under the circumstances.” 755 ILCS 5/11a–17(e) (West 2000). See also In re Marriage of Burgess, 189 Ill.2d 270, 278–79, 244 Ill.Dec. 379, 725 N.E.2d 1266 (2000) (guardian must generally “make decisions on behalf of a ward in accordance with the ward’s previously expressed wishes”).

In re Mark W., 228 Ill. 2d 365, 374, 888 N.E.2d 15, 20 (2008)
Ken Ditkowsky

http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/

From JoAnne

Dear Readers,

Now one would think that a GAL is supposed to be the “eyes and ears” and not take a side, not isolate a ward, not allow any of her property to be destroyed by the PG’s atty, PS, but it happened.

All of it happened.

Nothing was reported to the court, there is nothing in the court’s files indicating any concern on the part of the GAL’s.

How could this be you ask?

It is most certainly clear that everytime a GAL ticks off someone in the family, they make a bundle.  They sell the ward’s paid for home for atty’s fees, they foment controversy, they get right in the middle of everything.

The other daughter is and has basically been pro se for 95% of this proceeding.  The GAL’s are counting on that too.

It seems to me, when these controversies are involved, perhaps the senior and her family have a constitutional right to an atty–and the Probate Court should pay for that, not the senior or family when wrongs have been committed.  This is especially so when the attys involved will be asking the estate for reimbursement in the case.

It is my opinion that once it became clear there was a conflict of interest with the GAL’s and the other daughter, the GAL’s should have been replaced and the case reassigned a new judge and the other daughter should have been appointed a pro bono atty if she asked for one.  That would have made the proceeding much fairer and ensured justice.

take care

joanne

Let’s see which Probate Court does better–Rockford or the 18th floor of the Daley Center

Dear Readers

As you may or may not know, John Howard Wyman has written an excellent book on the Probate court in Rockford, and his harrowing experiences there.  If you don’t have a copy, please go out and get a copy.  Out of stress and strife, John Wyman has done a great deal of good by writing a book on his experiences in order to help YOU, the people who have been denied justice in an Illinois Probate Court.

While I am not going to provide you with much comment on this case because there’s no reason–the pleadings speak for themselves, I did want make sure you have the pleadings in case you face a similar situation.  Therefore, I am publishing all the documents in that case, namely,

John’s original Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (Sodini)

JHW – Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction – filed Aug 31, 2012

Attorney Sharon Rudy’s Brief in Response

SRR – Response to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction – filed Sept 14, 2012

My Reply Brief, filed yesterday:

JMD Reply Brief–Motion to Dismiss, Lack of Jurisdiction (Soldini)
The transcript from the last hearing in which I argued that the Motion to Dismiss IS in fact an emergency because everyday someone lives under a guardianship without jurisdiction is a day she has been deprived of life, liberty, property, human rights and civil rights without due process of law, which is a constitution violation under the US and Illinois state constitutions.

Transcript of hearing 8/31/12 re Emergency Motion to Dismiss or Nonsuit due to lack of Jurisdiction.

I will be ordering all the transcripts today.

I am also publishing the hearing date, time and place of September 28th, Court room 217, 400 West State St, Rockford Illinois, Judge Fabiano  at 11:00 am so all the Probate groups can come out and watch and publish.  This should be a major victory for the Probate groups.  If the Honorable Judge Fabiano does her job, this should be a dismissal/nonsuit QED.

Judge Fabiano will be our heroine.  She can then tell all the other Illinois probate judges to carefully check and question that all adult children, siblings and parents have been given notice of the date, time and place of hearing, in writing, 14 days in advance of the hearing.

thanks

JoAnne

I am publishing this because PLEADINGS SHOULD BE PUBLIC.  The Rockford Court house has been given about 80 million dollars so far to get their court records computerized, and so far, nada.  Attys cannot upload, the public cannot download and the system, like the Cook County system, is an electronic dinosaur.

I hope to also get all the transcripts and publish them for you in the Rockford case.

While I am actively involved in the case, I will refrain from commenting on it, you can still get the book (on Amazon), and read the pleadings and transcripts because I intend to do the job of the Illinois county courts and make them all public, as they should be.

thanks

joanne
PS – If you are having any problems opening the above links, try downloading the software for Google Drive–just google it.  If that does not work, please email me and I will try to help.

Summary of Procedural Errors in In Re Mary Sykes

From KDD:

I wonder if another letter to Judge Evans, Judge Stuart, the two Illinois Senators, the Judicial Inquiry Board, the ARDC. Gov Quinn and the Chief Judge of the Illinois Supreme Court might cause a stir!

Maybe you could ask as a concerned citizen how the actions in the Sykes case can be reconciled with the Sodini case.   For instance the Petition does not comply with the statute.   It is missing the names several people who are required to be named;  i.e., Mary’s two sisters.    The petition requires the disclosure of ‘powers of attorney’.   There are none.   755 ILCs 11a – 7.   Of course 755 ILCS 11a -10 (f) requires service on the ‘near’ relatives.   These are Gloria and her two aunts.   Neither was served.
If we get more basic, how come the proceeding was brought in Cook County – at the time of the filing Mary was residing in DuPage County.    (755 ILCS 11a -3)   The statute uses the world ‘shall!’
Sodini mandates that these technicalities are jurisdictional.   No jurisdiction means no valid court orders could issue after Dec. 7, 2009.
If you look at section 18, the treatment of a disabled person is mandated – Isolating a disabled person from her younger daughter, he siblings, her friends, her activities is beyond the scope of authority.   Indeed, the statute appears (section 18) is very clear that the plenary guardian is specifically prohibited from denying a disabled person her liberty, her property, her civil rights and her human rights.    The affidavit of Mr. Evans that was attached to my answer demonstrates how perverted the process has become in Illinois.
What is scary is the fact that if the process that was followed in Gore, Tyler, Wyman and Sykes as examples were to be followed in the case of Romney or Obama each of our presidential candidates could have Carolyn Toerpe as their plenary guardian.   Adam Stern could then and there tell the Court that Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney did not wish attorneys, Dr. ****** or **** could testify that he administered the mini-mental examination and combined Mr Romney and Mr. Obama scored 12 out of 44 and therefore neither has the capacity to care for themselves and need ReHab assist to look out for them 24/7.     Cynthia Farenga can tell the Court with the same degree of certainty that she exhibited in the Sykes case that Mr. Obama was delusional when he said that he was the President of the United States and Mr. Romney has a vivid imagination when he claimed to have been nominated by those imaginary Republicans to be their nominee.   After all – it is unethical to confuse her with the facts – she has made up her mind, and besides everyone knows that there are no Republicans in Cook County.
In all seriousness we need an ‘honest’ comprehensive and complete investigation now!    I really would have trouble with Mr. Obama having Carolyn as his plenary guardian.
Ken Ditkowsky

This is what happens when Justice comes “from a list”

Dear Readers;
This is in response to my assertions that Mary should not have to continually beg and plead for an attorney to get one, or make a complete stink, that she should be allowed to see her former attorney Ken Ditkowsky freely, that he should be allowed to help her and the Probate Court’s assertions that a Probate Judge, such as the august Judge Connors requires that a ward “really need” an attorney then she would appoint one.  Of course, the GAL’s are appointed “from a list”, any independent counsel, if some ward really made a stink and it somehow got back, would not have their counsel of choice, but would have someone appointed “from a list”–which does absolutely no good, may as well have two GAL’s, oh that right, that already happened– and Judge Stuart’s assertions before a tribunal and Adam Stern’s that a ward cannot contract for an attorney is absolutely not supported by the case law.  Of course, they’re both “from a list.”
Further, court supervisors are appointed “from a list” and are not chosen for their thriftiness, nor do they work for free, as here where the court has taken away all of the other daughter’s money, and the GAL’s threaten family members they cannot see Mary if they don’t tow the line.
The court is “from a list”, the GAL’s are “from a list”, anyone who speaks out if there is something wrong will require a supervisor “from a list” and you can’t get independent counsel because they won’t be “from a list”.
But the $1 million is well documented, not investigated and everyone “from the list” sticks together to deny an elder of her life, liberty, property, human rights and civil rights–clearly those must only come “from a list.”
I submit for your consideration that when justice “comes from a list” it is justice denied.
Read on for further ideas from KDD.
JoAnne
Now, from Ken:
The probate act is intended to be non-adversarial.   In other words, the community is intended to come together to protect the elderly, the lame, the sick, and all who are unable in one way or another to help themselves.   The intentions of the act are good.   The history of the act goes back to basic Judio/Christian dogma.
The idea of fiefdom for any individual is alien and the idea that the civil rights of an individual would be forfeit by the Act is heresy.  Unfortunately, the GAO report, the Sykes case and the others related thereto,i.e. Gore, Tyler, etc  illustrate the avarice is a cancer that has pervaded the best of intentions.    The idea that is advanced by Farenga, Stern, Schmiedel, et al that these guardianship proceedings are ‘secret’ rituals to be closely supervised by the elite (obviously themselves) is nothing short of pornographic.    755 ILCS 11a -18 makes it clear that if a guardian is to appointed the guardian does not have carte blanche – the guardian is an ‘angel’ whose appointment is intended to carry out the wishes of the ward in the highest fiduciary manner possible.
As Mr. Stern testified – the guardian is given absolute discretion to govern the life of the ward, including but not limited to isolating the ward (elder abuse) from family friends, willy nilly making the assets of the estate vanish, and punishing the ‘Gloria Sykes” who oppose the arbitrary governance of the ward’s estate.
The letter of NASGA to Judge Stuart that called attention to infamy that was being perpetrated in the Sykes case should have been welcomed by the Court and an immediate investigation should have followed.    The idea of ignoring the citizen report was and is intolerable.   Persons paid by the public are not anointed.   The are not better than the rest of us peons.    The government employee whether a judge, a guardian ad litem, etc is a ‘public trust’ and impacts a duty.    The fact that Farenga, who ignored her duty repeatedly, made denials that Carolyn had sequestered and ignored not inventorying approximately a million dollars in collectibles (Au Coins), when Carolyn has not denied the same is obscene.    The fact that Farenga and Stern knew that Carolyn was drilling the safety deposit box and could not be bothered to find out what was in the box is equally obscene; however, to not report the allegation to the Court and suggest that the allegation is imaginary when both neglected to observe or properly call for an investigation is pernicious.    I do not have to state what I think of the attempts to deny First Amendment rights and to silence the protest of the alleged “theft” and the what followed.
In these cases in which a senior citizens rights, privileges and immunities are compromised (and in many cases forfeited)  the failure of a Court to give credence to all public protestations of possible corruption is reprehensible.   The attempts at ‘cover up’ are intolerable and require law enforcement at all levels to conduct ‘honest’, comprehensive, and complete investigations instanter.    Justice Marshall, and Lord Mansfield are turning over in their graves!   Buck vs. Bell and Dred Scott are alive and well in the Probate Division.   Shame!
Ken Ditkowsky