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

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 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.


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.



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.


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.
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.

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

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


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.



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.


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.
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

From Ken Ditkowsky, what rights do a ward have, according to case law?

Dear Readers;
In light of the fact that the Probate court is pushing its agenda that a ward MUST have an attorney selected from a list approved by the court, and a ward has no rights, as evidenced by Judge Connors deposition (published on this site), one wonders what is really going on.
I recall some years ago where SCOTUS (the US Supreme Ct) ruled that a 12 year old had the right to an atty that was separate from that chosen by his parents or the court.
A 12 year old has better rights that grandma or grandpa fighting a guardianship?  I would hope not.  But that’s what is going on everyday on the 18th floor of the Daley center and in other Probate courts in Illinois.
And I believe that just isn’t right.
Read on for some words of wisdom from Ken:
From Ken:
What has been happening to various seniors has been addressed by the Courts in a different context.
Molko v. Holy Spirit Assn., 46 Cal. 3d 1092, 252 Cal. Rptr. 122, 762 P.2d 46 (1988), as modified on denial of reh’g, (Dec. 1, 1988) (holding that the appointment of the parents as the temporary conservators of their adult children pursuant to a former statute that provided for the appointment of conservators of a person who is likely to be deceived or imposed upon by artful or designing persons, on the basis that the children had become coercively persuaded or brainwashed by a religious organization that they had joined, was a violation of the conservatees’ federal and state constitutional rights to religious freedom, in the absence of such actions that rendered the children gravely disabled as defined by law); Katz v. Superior Court, 73 Cal. App. 3d 952, 141 Cal. Rptr. 234 (1st Dist. 1977).
In an action by the parents of an 18-year-old congenitally deaf woman who was alleged to be incompetent under a state statute on the grounds that she was socially naive and was being brainwashed, programmed, and secreted by members of a religious sect, the daughter could not be declared incompetent on a finding that she was “judgmentally immature” where the sole effect of immaturity as the standard by which to judge one incompetent to manage her person or property manifested itself as an abridgement of her constitutionally guaranteed right to the free exercise of her religious beliefs, there being no financial assets of which the woman could be deprived by artful or designing persons. Matter of Guardianship of Polin, 1983 OK 111, 675 P.2d 1013, 44 A.L.R.4th 1199 (Okla. 1983).
39 Am. Jur. 2d Guardian and Ward § 24
Apparently in some States the Constitution is taken seriously and the First Amendment actually means something.  I am glad of that.

From Judy Ditkowsky–a great summary of the case from her perspective

Dear Judy;

Thanks for passing this along.  I understand before whatever the hearing board does is made final, Ken will be able to submit more argument after learning of specific findings of fact.

Thanks again, you are a great writer and don’t be shy.


First of all, approximately 3 years ago, the attorney for the older sister (Carolyn)  in the Sykes case, AND the “special” guardian ad litem called Ken in his office, within an hour of each other, each threatening to file a claim before the ARDC.   They threatened to have Ken brought up on charges before the Circuit Court, as they said that the Court had ruled that there was to be no further inquiry into the Sykes case.  At that time, I was in the office almost every day because of Ken’s problems with secretaries quitting and/or being sick and I was there when they called. Ken put the calls on speakerphone so I heard them. Ken was livid at this threat.

About a year to a year and a half ago, an ARDC claim was filed by the attorney for Carolyn (Peter Schmiedel), and the two guardians ad litem:  the original guardian, Cynthia Farenga and  the special guardian ad litem, Adam Stern.   When Ken continued to investigate they filed a petition in the Circuit Court for sanctions,   and Ken was eventually declared “a bad boy”.  He appealed the case,and the claim was  THROWN OUT FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION by the APPELLATE court.

After Ken won in the Appellate Court, the undeterred GALs  (guardians ad litem)  continued to press charges and filed the instant proceedings with the ARDC,  with fifteen claims that Ken lied, was deceitful and was interfering with the course of justice and that he had sent emails.  Ken had sent the emails, and of course admitted that. BUT he asked for specifics. You have taught law classes and you know that vague claims are not allowed.  During the discovery process, the attorney for the ARDC admitted that the ARDC did not have information on what Ken had lied about or how he had interfered with the administration of justice. Of course, then Ken filed a motion to have the ARDC charges disallowed for want of knowledge, clarity and specificity.  The first indication that this might not be a level ground proceeding was that Ken’s motion was denied.  So he had to defend himself against essentially unknown charges.

Once he came to the hearing, the chief hearing officer sustained every motion of the ARDC to squelch any questioning that had to do with the truth or falsity of what Ken had said, calling it “trying the underlying case”.  What was the underlying case?  Ken has not appeared for anyone in “the underlying case”.  The attorney for the ARDC administrator spent over an hour emphasizing that Ken had been sanctioned by  the ARDC, and tried to ignore the actions of the Circuit and Appellate Court on the case which the appellate court had thrown out.  By allowing this to proceed, was the hearing officer impartial?  Well, I’m not impartial either, but I don’t think it came through as something which properly should have been allowed to occur.

The hearing officer had over-ruled Ken’s objection to telephone testimony by a physician whom Ken had contacted regarding the facts of something that Ken had written to the doctor and was supposed to be in the doctor’s files.  When the telephone testimony occurred, the doctor could not find the document or the place on the document to which the ARDC attorney was referring.  (All the other witnesses had the benefit of this attorney coming over to them and showing them where to look).  Eventually, the hearing officer got so frustrated that he asked to speak to the court reporter at the doctor’s office.  The doctor’s reply was “She’s not here”.  The hearing officer let this travesty of testimony continue for several minutes before finally stating that the doctor would have to come and testify in person on Friday.  If the court reporter who had been hired by the ARDC was noton the scene and recording what was happening, how could the hearing officer hear the testimony, if this was a level field hearing?

The hearing officer had allowed two days (Thursday and Friday) for the hearing and stated firmly that that was all the time allotted. He said that both sides, the ARDC and Ken, had thought it would take only one day, and he had allotted the second day only as an emergency spillover.  Then he allowed the ARDC to put on its case until I think it was four o’clock on Friday afternoon.  Is this a level playing field?

Nevertheless, with all the obstacles presented, Ken and his attorney were able to show that the older daughter’s attorney KNEW that money which had been frozen by the court system at his request was money involved in an insurance claim in which Gloria (the younger daughter) was the only litigant: the money had NOTHING to do with the old lady.  They were able to get the “special” guardian ad litem to admit that the mother was living in Du Page county, when the statute shows that probate proceedings MUST take place in the county in which the person at risk of guardianship actually lived, which was not Cook County; that Mrs. Sykes living sisters (required specifically by the law) had never been formally notified that they had the right to be at any guardianship hearing, the mother was only told of her rights to an attorney of her choice and a six person jury in a meeting in the home of the daughter whom the mother had specifically asked for an order of protection against, by this guardian — so this did not meet the legal requirements.  No one contested the claim that Ken has voiced that the mother had been admitted to the hospital for a swallowing disorder only AFTER she had lost 10% of her body weight, nor had the guardians ad litem done anything to protect their ward’s health.  The guardian ad litem actually stated that “these things happen to these people” — ie, preventable illness in his ward is none of his duty as the “eyes and ears of the court”.    The second guardian ad litem admitted that the only time she ever saw Mrs. Sykes was when the older daughter brought her to her office in Evanston because “Naperville was too far away” and the other guardian lived closer.  That is precisely why the Statute says that the proceedings must take place in the county where the person resides.  Naperville is in Du Page county, so she knew that she was not a qualified guardian under the statute.   Ken and his attorney were able to bring in the transcript in which the first judge in the case clearly said that if the MD (the one with the telephone testimony travesty and Mary’s long time physician) would not sign the form which said that Mrs Sykes was incompetent , the guardians should find another doctor who would–i.e., go doctor shopping  And, when he cross examined the first guardian ad litem, Ken was able to get him to admit that there were two doctors who routinely sign such documents and one of them was the doctor who signed the paper for Mrs. Sykes.  Finally, Ken’s attorney, when cross-examining the Evanston guardian, got her to admit that the older daughter was allowed to drill a safety deposit box with neither guardian ad litem present, even though they had received all these emails, because they “KNEW” that the gold in the box was imaginary.  When they called Ken as an adverse witness, he had the chance to give the four reasons he had to believe that the gold was real: 1) when he drew a will for Mrs. Sykes some years ago, he had properly investigated the size and type of estate he was drawing a will for; 2) Mrs. Sykes sister had told him of the way in which at least part of it had been acquired (inheritance from a specific estate), 3) he had seen one of the coins, so he was able to describe it to coin dealers and/or look up its value in coin catalogs so that he could estimate the total value at that time of the treasure, and 4) that the person accused of having taken the gold without inventory had never denied the allegation.  Remember, he was under oath and he is supposed to be presumed innocent and therefore telling the truth.  Ken  was able to state that he had been asking for investigations by Law Enforcement of activities which did not seem to fit any definition of proper behavior, and that he had been open in all his emails so that the various complainants could not complain that he was acting behind their backs.

The only action which the ARDC attorneys took to “prove” that Ken was telling lies was having the various witnesses they call deny (of course all were under oath) that they had ever done anything illegal — but over and over and over again– clearly another time waster.  Last time I studied the matter, in the U.S., a person is innocent until proven guilty — in this level of hearing, by clear and convincing evidence.  Under oath these witnesses had admitted that they had not performed the duties required by the law, had not protected Mrs. Sykes interests, had trampled over the rights of others, all of the matters that Ken had been calling for an investigation of.  No evidence was given that anyone had ever done anything except to ask what “he said” or “she said”.  Ken’s attorney brought out that the fact that these guardians had remained active in the case for no pay was not the ordinary course of legal practice of private attorneys who have bills to pay.  Ken specified exactly how much he had been paid (very very little and only at the outset) and that he had an escrow fund that includes more that what he can possibly ever be called upon to return, and that he was acting as a concerned citizen after he had been barred from representing any party in the case… and also  because as a lawyer he is bound by an actual mandatory reporting law for questionable behavior of other lawyers or governmental officials.  This is called the Himmel rule, after an adjudication.  The behavior of the guardians’ ad Litem, the judges, the attorney for the older sister, make it clear that they believe that ONCE a malfeasance has been reported, peons cannot report it again if no investigation has been made by a third party.  This is not the clear intent of the ruling of the court which promulgated this rule, nor of the baseline statute.  Of course, in their opening statement, the ARDC attorneys had stated that Ken had raised the spector of the Greylord hearings just when the public was beginning to respect the Cook County courts after so many years.  No doubt or question about that:  most of Ken’s emails had had the word Greylord in their title!!!

Ken was under oath; having been called as an adverse witness, he was able to bring  material that had previously been disallowed to the attention of the court.  Since the order was apparently written before the hearing officers left for the day.. it was issued early on Monday, obviously, Ken’s exculpatory evidence  had clearly never been looked at — again, the presumption of innocence was ignored.  Is this a level playing field???

When the transcript is issued… and obviously, the hearing officers relied “only” on their memory of what they had heard …all of this will be part of the public record.  In the meantime, the charges against Ken have been on the internet for months and no doubt the order is there now too.

In the meantime, Ken’s attorney showed that the doctor knew that the way in which Ken had phrased his questions did not make it mandatory that he respond.  He also showed that the amount of time that the guardian ad litems and the attorney for the older daughter had spent was clearly optional on their part, as they had never sent their copies of the email to spam, formally requested of Ken that he stop copying them on the emails, or taken any action short of the ARDC to stop getting the emails.  Meanwhile the ARDC lawyers attempted to break copyright laws by putting blogs into evidence without permission of the copyright owners of the blogs.  This is one of the few things they were not allowed to do.

Interestingly, the effect of Ken’s campaign has actually allowed vulnerable people to call upon the “Sodini rule” (an appelate court case relating to the laws of guardianship which I mentioned above), get their hearings, and not be declared wards of the court without due process, have their civil liberties abrogated and the money they worked for all their lives squandered by guardians and kept from their children and grandchildren and rightful heirs.  Is this interfering with justice? which was one of the fifteen counts,  or is it interfering with nefarious activity?

Why should Ken need character witnesses?  He was not accused of stealing from the elderly!  He was accused of telling lies about public officials, and the officials under oath were forced to admit the truth of some of those accusations despite the active assistance of the chief hearing officer with the attempts of the ARDC attorneys to bar this evidence.  Over the two days, about fifteen people came in to witness the hearing, and that did not include Naomi and myself.  Those who could stayed the whole time.  One lady who came had a family member from whom nine million dollars was extracted.  In another case, I think in Colorado, a ward died under strange circumstances and her body was cremated within hours.  The General Accounting Office wrote a report last year stating that elderly abuse by state officials is endemic nationwide.  Was this a level playing field? I’m not unbiased, but I still think not.  How was the field tilted?  There has been plenty of evidence in the past few years about how such things have been done in other cases.  Is it likely that what looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, breaks bones like a duck is a duck??????

Ken is not playing dead by any means.  Exactly how he intends to go about ordering the evidence that he has been railroaded is still being decided.

From Joanne again;
Great job and wonderful observations and summary.  I only had to correct a few words and typos.  You did great and raised some wonderful questions regarding the proceeding.

My question is,  how did they spend soooo much time on soooo much testimony regarding what was or was not done in the Sykes probate case when it is clear from the record 95% of those actions occurred when the court had no jurisdiction?

Not having jurisdiction is like the accused who is convicted and spends 3 years in prison when he was never in fact arrested or tried.   So everyone talks about the incarceration for 2 days?  I don’t get that.

And it’s not like you need witnesses to prove that point.  There are 3 declarations on this website from the younger daughter and two elderly sisters of Mary attesting to the fact that they never received 14 days advanced written notice from the petitioner of the date, time and place of hearing, meaning the court actually lost jurisdiction and became a nullity on December 7, 2009.  It’s all in writing.  The records are published on this website.  3 declarations and a court order from November 18, 2009 setting the hearing date says it all.

The rest is actually history, but I don’t understand how or why the hearing board had to go any further after that.

Working without jurisdiction incurs great liability on all the attys involved in the case and the two judges.  The first judge actually sits on the Court of Appeals for the 2nd district and she could not figure out a simple case of jurisdiction?  She ran the Sykes probate court from December 7, 2009 until December 23, 2010 without jurisdiction, issuing about an order per month–and all of those orders weren’t worth the Charmin they were printed on!

I guess I don’t understand the ARDC hearing process at all.  They accuse Ken of misconduct while at the same time, there was an elephant pooing in their courtroom and they claim not to see the elephant or the mounds of elephant poo.

No one has explained the elephant and the elephant poop to me yet.

Status of Cases–Sykes, Wyman

1.  In Re Mary Sykes:  Next court date October 3, 2012.  MTD Denied August 16, 2012 and Notice of Appeal must be filed in 35 days, then a docketing statement 14 days after that.  Recommended additional actions:  Because jurisdiction is in issue, family should file a Motion to stay the sale of Mary’s house and partition of other daughter’s home.
2.  In re Wyman.  Motion to Dismiss for lack of Jurisdiction filed.  In briefing schedule.  Sharon Rudy’s assistant asked for extension of time on Friday to file Responsive Brief and that was agreed to as long as she emails me copy of brief on Monday and grants me the same courtesy when necessary.  Hearing to be held on Sept 28, 2012 at 11 am.  All are invited.  Judge Fabiano’s courtroom 217 in Rockford, 400 State Street courhouse.  All pending asset sales are on hold until jurisdiction can be determined.

From Ken Ditkowsky–Happy Rosh Hashanna and a return to ethics for a new year!

Dear Readers;
While Ken was informing me of the Jewish New Year, (happy New Year), I was quipping about the year 5773 is so big it should be done in log form base 10 which means that 2012 is actually 3.03 and I forget 5773, but you all can do the math yourself (and yes, logs are actually math, not arithmetic).
Whenever someone hands me an annoying form I don’t want to fill out, I typically do the date in log form, which can be a whole lot of fun!  For example, today is 3 exp 2/3*5/10exp3.03.  People love it and I can teach them math!  how convenient is that?
I told him I love any holiday as long as it involves good food and drinking. Champagne preferrably, but a prosecco will do in a pinch!
take care all, and Happy New Year 10exp3.73!
Dear JoAnne
I am not a religious nut!   The fact is that I am an ultra liberal Jew.   This means I am like the Catholic Easter Bunnies in ‘spades!’   I go to the house of worship so often that I still have to use my GPS to find the place.
that said, the Jewish New Year is the holiest days of they year. (actually Yom Kippur is, it’s the day after or before, I forget, but I have to agree with you, Ken that  a New Year should be the holiest because, well, religion should look forward and forget the darned guilt!)   It a turning point in life when a Jew reflects on his/her conduct, forgives his/her enemies and asks for personal forgiveness.  It is a beginning and an end.  It is a celebration of life and redemption.
Few people can honestly even suggest that they are without sin.   Few people can look in the mirror and say, I like that person.  On the high holy days a jew looks into that mirror and asks the question and gives an answer.
An attorney takes an oath that is essentially as follows:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be), that I will support the constitution of the United States and the constitution of the state of Illinois, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of attorney and counselor at law to the best of my ability.  IL ST CH 705 § 205/4
What do those words mean?   They mean that I support the right of Mary Sykes and all mankind to liberty, property, civil rights and human rights.   It means that I am not going to watch your civil rights, Mary’s civil rights, Gloria’s civil rights or ***’s civil rights be trampled into the ground.   more specifically it means that I am not intimidated by Adam Stern, Cynthia Farenga, Peter Schmiedel, or any of their companions and ‘fellow traveler’s.’   It means that I am not intimidated by the ARDC panel or anyone else that takes objection to the fact that I have spoken out and will continue to speak out when I see injustice, breach of the law, and ‘cover up.’  It also means that I will continue to contact law enforcement to demand an honest, complete and comprehensive investigation into the Mary Sykes affair and every one of the similar cases – indeed, it also means that I will aid and abet law enforcement in bringing to justice each of the miscreants who have and are continuing to deny ‘grandma’ of her liberty, her property, her civil rights and her human rights.
The Jewish holiday reinforces the obligation of the attorney oath as I as an American was born with a gold spoon firmly attached to both ends.   I am a 2nd generation American.    My Grandfather homesteaded land in North Dakota and my father worked his way through medical school in the ‘cleaning plants’ of Chicago.  Each provided me with the heritage of Freedom.     My personal moral code dictates that I not squander that Freedom but allowing or sitting silent when I see Adam Stern, Cynthia Farenga, Peter Schmiedel and others participate in the activities that have been documented in Sykes, Gore, Tyler, Wyman and dozens of similar type cases now pending or disposed by the ultimate solution.
In today’s American society it may be politically correct to look the other way when a senior citizen is isolated from her family, her friends and neighbors, and it may be ethically challenged to assemble, protest to authorities and to activist groups, or otherwise object that the documented activities of Troepe, Stern, Farenga, Schmiedel and others; however.   in the year 5773 (2012) and following as long as the good Lord gives me life I intend to continue my protest for every senior or otherwise handicapped person who is abuse, exploited, or otherwise deprived of his/her liberty, property, civil rights and human rights.
I like the person whose image appears in the mirror when I shave.   The oath I took on November 28, 1961 meant something to me then and it means something to me now.   The High Holidays is a reaffirmation!
While I have the soapbox, I remember being in Judge Hoffman’s Court on one of the two Jewish holidays.  Hoffman liked to require Jewish lawyers to attend motion call on the Holidays, and as a young attorney you showed up prior to services.  Anyway, we were waiting for Julius the Just to appear, when in stormed the Chief Judge of the US District Court, he accosted Hoffman as they approached the bench.   The chief Judge (I cannot think of his name – he was Italian) roared:  “Julius, I do not give a damn if you respect yourself, but I demand that you respect me!  When you labor on the High Holy days you show your disrespect for me.”
Hoffman slink ed out of the courtroom and there were no more high holiday sessions in his courtroom.
In a similar manner when I allow myself to be intimidated or distracted from my obligation to support the United States Constitution and the Illinois Constitution by the likes of Stern, Farenga, Schmiedel, Black et al, I demonstrate not only disrespect for me, but for you and America.  Democracy is not a spectator sport!   Our American tradition and our Judeo-Christian tradition (and I need to add in the Muslims, Wiccans, Druids there, can’t forget them, I think that needs to be corrected to Judeo-Christian-Wiccan-Pagan Tradition)  is also not a spectator sport.    The fight that we have engaged in is more than a battle to protect senior citizens from Court appointed predators – it is our demonstration to our friends, neighbors, family, and most importantly our children and grandchildren that I respect me and thee!
Ken Ditkowsky

Breaking news–KDD found guilty of “misconduct” but exactly what miscondut?

Dear Readers;

Apparently today KDD received a letter from the ARDC saying they found him guilty of “misconduct”. No reasoning.  No findings of fact, no conclusions of law, no reasoning.  Just a blanket statement.

So what was the misconduct, exactly?  Was it because Larry Hyman made CF cry?  Was it because the cats in the peanut gallery commented on the fact LB’s high heels were too big and she flashed boobage during the proceeding clearly aimed at her second chair and the hearing panel chair to distract them?  Was it because the peanut gallery, consisting of the 6 to 8 major probate blogs shows up and laughed at LB during appropriate moments because she is clearly technologically challenged?

Many inquiring minds want to know.  Hey, I want to know.

But outpouring of sympathy and support for KDD is resplendent among the bloggers and peanut gallery and anyone else who read and reads his words of wisdom.

I advised him long ago to go to Federal Court because the ARDC was clearly “in” on all of this too and friends and cronies of the miscreants.  But did he listen?  Heck no.

So Ken, don’t dispair.  Get your butt over to federal court where the judges didn’t sleep during Con Law 101 and don’t have cronies on the 18th floor.  That’s where you belong and that’s where your intellect and abilities will shine.  Mucking around with the alligators in the swamp is not where you belong.  You are better served up on the hill with wise, intellectual human beings for a change.

take care


—– Forwarded Message —–
From: Martin
To: “” <>
Cc: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 5:32 PM
Subject: Re: [NASGAmembers] From Attorney Ken Ditkowsky re: Order – dated August 10, 2012 In re: Kenneth Ditkowsky 2012 PR 00014
Ken I would suggest on Monday you contact Richard Thompson of the Thomas More Law Center and have them represent you pro bono for violations of your 1st amendment rights to free speech. I was on the security detail for Pastor Terry Jones and Wayne Sapp and they were railroaded to about their free speech rights and they won their case.
Richard Thompson is the former Oakland County Prosecutor who successfully convicted Dr. Jack Korvorkian of assisted suicide. I will call you tomorrow with the contact information and the other contact person there is my friend Kathlyn Lynch.
Never give up my friend.
Marty Prehn
PS Sounds like we may need a protest
From: nasga us <>
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 5:56 PM
Subject: [NASGAmembers] From Attorney Ken Ditkowsky re: Order – dated August 10, 2012 In re: Kenneth Ditkowsky 2012 PR 00014

From: kenneth ditkowsky <>
Date: Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 1:41 PM
Subject: Order – dated August 10, 2012 In re: Kenneth Ditkowsky 2012 PR 00014
To: NASGA <>, probate sharks <>, JoAnne M Denison <>, Tim Lahrman  Bev Cooper

Larry Hyman called to tell me apparently before the ARDC panel left for the day they found me guilty of misconduct.  As representatives of the various organizations that protest elder abuse/financial exploitation of the elderly  sat through the hearing it is apparent that each organization having a person present has an opinion as to the veracity of the finding that I acted improperly.   It would be helpful to me, if you would publicly express that opinion to the panel, the ARDC, and the public in general.
The ARDC order did not specify what conduct was misconduct, but, as the only conduct alleged was my complaining about the fact that Mary Sykes was railroaded into a guardianship sans jurisdiction and this situation has prevailed for three years – It is apparent that Lawyers are guilty of misconduct if they report elder abuse, financial exploitation of the elderly and/or exercise their First Amendment Rights.
It thus appears that the policy of the State of Illinois as stated in 735 ILCS 110/5 is just verbiage- it means absolutely nothing.  It apparently is the policy of the State of Illinois that the jurisdictional protections of 755 ILCS 11a – 1 et seq are irrelevant.    It is apparently the policy of the State of Illinois that the protections of the First Amendment are irrelevant, and the Supreme Court is also irrelevant.    An attorney who acts to disclose the ‘dirty little secret’ that senior citizens are being routinely deprived of their life, liberty, their property, their civil rights and human rights you can expect that you will be disciplined.  Censorship is alive and well!   The separation of a 90 year old lady from a million dollars of assets is a subject that must be ‘covered up!’   To request an investigation is obviously unethical.
Even though it is aggravation of my misconduct to advocate to law enforcement that they investigate the Mary Sykes case and similar cases I renew my call for an honest, complete and comprehensive investigation.   I do believe, though I could be wrong, this is still America and we still have a First Amendment and a Bill of Rights.  Democracy is not a spectator sport!
Ken Ditkowsky
Dear Ken;
Just a minor correction, but seniors are being deprived of life, liberty, property, human rights and civil rights.  We all know that nursing homes are dangerous places and seniors live about 40% or more fewer years there than in their own homes, so when probate courts declare seniors ALWAYS demented, ALWAYS in need of 24/7 specialized care in a lock down facility (to be sure they don’t escape home before the home is sold), then medicare liens the home, sells it and that pays the US govt AND the probate attys–everyone gets a piece of grandma’s and grandpa’s pie, except the families, we KNOW they’re not happy and they will lose the will to live.  It is clearly a deprivation of life, liberty and property and the shameful, dirty little secret of the US, and probate attys in general.

Ken Ditkowsky does a Cable Access Show on Sykes

Dear Readers;

In case you did not know, last night Ken Ditkowsky and Bev Cooper engaged in a wonderful discussion of the evil and corruption which has crept into the 18th floor of Probate, and specifically this show featured the ARDC proceedings.

I was at the taping, and I have been promised disks of relevant shows which I will post on Vimeo and Facebook for your viewing enjoyment.  The cable show airs on the North Shore in various suburbs on Comcast including approx. Highland Park, Winnetka, Lake Forest, etc.  Bev tells me it will air repeatedly over the next few days, which is great and will give the issues a whole lot more exposure.

Please read on for KDD’s wonderful assessment of portions of his trial (which I happen to agree with).

I also want to thank Bev and Ken Cooper very much for all their hard work on these shows, protecting Probate Court victims and eliminating corruption from the courts.


Ms. Denison/Ms Cooper
Ms Cooper, thank you for the opportunity to appear on your program and express my views on the Elder Abuse/Financial Exploitation of the Elderly situation.
On the way home from your studio I was reminded of the most serious of the allegations that I have made concerning the Elder Abuse/Financial Exploitation situation.   It is interesting that it is the one series of allegations that the ARDC has stayed far away from even though, the ARDC attorney wanted to know if I repented for writing a complaint letter to Attorney General Holder and disclosed the three currency situation that I believe that I uncovered.   Of course I did not repent as I believe that under the First Amendment I have a right to communicate with my government and with the public.    The cross examination questions are significant in that they assumed that there was something wrong with my communicating with law enforcement and others information that is detrimental to a whole group of well connected individuals who receive from the State and Federal governments very significant sums of money.  (The suggestion that it was unethical to disclose the three  currency scenario was most troubling.   Why should the ARDC be concerned that I was disclosing a ‘fraud!’?)   The verification of situation was not only the statement from a nursing home owner, but the fact that my niece was terminated in retaliation.   As a citizen I have a right to be concerned and under the First Amendment my right is absolute.  Our Federal Government is 16 trillion dollars in debt.  It is respectfully submitted that every citizen should report questionable situations in which the hard earned tax dollars may be acquired under suspicious circumstances.
 That said, the nursing home agreements are all uniform and all drafted by the very same attorney for his key client.     The agreements involve the basic structure of the nursing home agreements.     The crux of the agreement up until I got involved was understood by people in the know to be a debtor/creditor relationship masquerading as a limited partnership.   Pursuant to the agreement the understanding was that the general partners were to receive a management fee of 5 to 7% of the gross income of the facility.
The attorney who drafted the agreement recognized that under Illinois law the only person who can manage a nursing home (care facility) is a State licensed administrator.    Thus he drafted the agreement to provide that the general partners can participate in the management (administration) and not create a conflict of interest.    If they participated the management would receive the fee of 7% – 9%.     To participate in the management a State license is required.    The agreements that I was furnished – in my opinion – do not authorize an exception to 805 ILCS 215/406 (f) with regard to the statutory prohibitions infra.
Thus, in most of the nursing homes  – I say most, because there might be an exception or two – the licensed administrator manages the nursing home and is usually paid a salary.     There is no provision for an unlicensed administrator.    Now read 805 ILCS 215/406 (f).    “(f) a general partner is not entitled to remuneration for services performed for the partnership”     Thus, Mr.Esformes, Mr. Kaplan, Mr. Rothner,  et al. have been taking money for management of the partnership and were not entitled to the same.    If this money was charged to the State of Illinois as part of the administrative expense in medicaid or similar cases the State of Illinois (and the United States of America) have been overcharged in the same manner as might be alleged in connection with the transportation, drug, nursing, etc.     The big difference is that with the number of nursing homes, the duration and **** we could be talking a billion (with a B) dollars in State reimbursements.    Depending on how this was reported on tax returns were could be talking about a significant amount of taxes.    Accordingly, we need an immediate honest, complete, and comprehensive investigation into all these elder abuse/financial exploitation cases.    As I’ve indicated this investigation must do more than just scratch the surface.   I believe that the Sykes case is tied into the Federal Investigation into the transportation of nursing home occupants (Kaplan and Rothner), the pharmaceutical purchases (Esformes),  Energy (Multiut) etc  ****.   This is an octopus with many heads.    I previously suggested that there were three currencies used to ‘cover up’ the miscreant activity.    US currency being used for legitimate operations, nursing home beds for intramural transactions, and opportunity for even more critical scenarios.     (As I am not a professional investigator at best the foregoing is supposition.    It may be 100% wrong; however, I believe in its accuracy and therefore submit it to my friends and to selected law enforcement, including Senator Kirk to ascertain if my observations are accurate)
Now couple all this with the other politically related Elder Care scandals involving isolation, deprivation of rights, cover up, voting, etc., in which the cabal is involved, then we are talking some major money and a major reason for attempting to shut up lawyers who might blow the whistle or might alert the authorities.
As I informed the ARDC attorneys during cross examination, I intend to continue to exercise my First Amendment Rights and report to my friends, my neighbors, my clients and my government the information that I feel needs investigation.   As I told Mr. Carter and Mr. Doluce my files are open to them and I will share.    With our government is in need of funds to operate, I believe that those who desire to deny the senior citizens their liberty, their property, their civil rights and/or their human rights ought to pay their fair share.
Ken Ditkowsky

Ken Ditkowsky responds to the Wyman book “Against Her Will”

 From KDD
The review (which is in quotes) is excellent.    Ms. Johnson captured the essence of the book and the problem with the words:  “Most of all, Against Her Will sounds a warning to all of us who are getting older; we’d better wake up and realize the system is rigged against us”     It is as long as the system gives carte blanche to those who prey on the elderly and protects them we – the elderly and our friends, neighbors, and those who love us – are in deep trouble.   Those who attended the ARDC discipline hearing seeking to punish me for speaking out heard Ms. Black tell the panel that what they (the ARDC) were doing was to attempt to make the public forget about ‘Greylord!’    By silencing you and by silencing me Ms. Black pointed out that this dirty little secret will remain out of the public eye and we can be distracted by the ‘Peterson’ trial.    On the other hand if the public is aware of the Wyman case, the Sykes case, the Tyler case et al. they might be upset and thing less of the 2nd oldest profession.   Indeed!
It is indeed fortunate that we still still live in America and the Law of Land is disclosed in the opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States and the statutes enacted by our elected representatives.   In United States vs. Alvarez the Supreme Court rejected the very arguments that the Illinois ARDC made to the disciplinary panel.    However, the proof is in the pudding!    Does the law of land mean more than ‘covering up’ the abuse, and the financial exploitation of the elderly?
Atty Ken Ditkowsky
KDD has been invited to be on “Cooper’s Corner” a cable show centering on probate and elder abuse and financial exploitation.
I will let you know when it airs.
Below is the link to the Book Review he is speaking of:

Drugs commonly used in Nursing Homes are off label use and Dangerous to Seniors!

Dear Readers;

As you are aware the seniors that are in nursing homes and don’t want to be there are often drugged so they don’t escape and don’t vociferously complained.

Nursing homes are one of the largest users of off-label psychotropic drugs which are dangerous and contraindicated for the elderly and those with heart disease, kidney disease, diabetes, dementia, etc.–because it makes all those conditions worse.

Lisa Madigan has just won an important victory and that is Mega Pharma has to stop lying about these drugs and warn doctors to not prescribe them to the elderly and those with heart disease, dementia, kidney disease, etc. because they are in fact, very dangerous.

And just to let you another dirty secret of mega Pharma.  They don’t work.  That’s right, you might obtain some temporary relief after a few weeks, but studies show if you were schizophrenic (delusional with hallucinations) before taking such drugs, after 5 years, approx. 20% of patients are, and the brain damage is not reversible.

For a good book on the high pressure marketing of drug companies, read the book or see the movie “Love and Other Drugs”, rated R.  The movie, not the book.

Drug companies use patented drugs when other natural remedies are much more effective and cost pennies, because you can’t patent a natural remedy.  Then the drug companies bribe and inundate docs with all sorts of slick marketing.  Since most docs don’t do any real research or read clinical studies since med school, it’s easy to push them toward expensive, ineffective, harsh chemical drugs that in the end do very little. 

My thanks to Lisa Madigan for uncovering this corruption in the drug industry.  But these drugs should be banned at nursing homes.  They just shouldn’t be there at all.


August 30, 2012


Chicago — Attorney General Lisa Madigan joined 36 other attorneys general to announce the largest multistate consumer protection settlement ever with a pharmaceutical company, Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc., over its unlawful marketing of the antipsychotic drug Risperdal.

The record $181 million settlement with Janssen, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, alleges the company improperly marketed Risperdal, Risperdal Consta, Risperdal M-Tab and Invega, all antipsychotic drugs. Illinois will receive $8.3 million under the agreement.

In a complaint filed today, Madigan and the other attorneys general allege Janssen engaged in unfair and deceptive practices when it marketed Risperdal “off-label” for certain treatments and conditions that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not approved.

The complaint alleges Janssen promoted Risperdal for off-label uses to both geriatric and pediatric populations, targeting patients with Alzheimer’s disease, dementia, depression and anxiety, though those uses were not FDA-approved and for which Janssen had not established that Risperdal was safe and effective.

“Janssen falsely marketed this drug to extremely vulnerable patients in spite of any recognized medical evidence that the drug would be safe or effective for individuals with these conditions,” Madigan said.

Following an extensive, four-year investigation, Janssen agreed to change not only how it promotes and markets its antipsychotics but also agreed to refrain from any false, misleading or deceptive promotion of the drugs. In addition to the record-setting payment to the states, the settlement addresses specific concerns identified in the investigation, including restricting Janssen from promoting its antipsychotic drugs for off-label uses.

Additionally, over a five-year period, Janssen must:

  • Clearly and conspicuously disclose, in promotional materials for antipsychotic drugs, the specific risks identified in the black-box warning on its product labels;
  • Present information about effectiveness and risk in a balanced manner in its promotional materials;
  • Not promote its antipsychotic drugs using selected symptoms of the FDA-approved diagnoses unless certain disclosures are made regarding the approved diagnoses;
  • Require its scientifically trained personnel, rather that its sales and marketing personnel, to develop the medical content of scientific communications to address requests for information from health care providers regarding Janssen’s antipsychotics;
  • Refrain from providing samples of its antipsychotics to health care providers whose clinical practices are inconsistent with the FDA-approved labeling of those antipsychotics;
  • Not use grants to promote its antipsychotics nor condition medical education funding on Janssen’s approval of speakers or program content;
  • Contractually require medical education providers to disclose Janssen’s financial support of their programs and any financial relationship with faculty and speakers; and
  • Implement policies to ensure that financial incentives are not given to marketing and sales personnel that encourage or reward off-label marketing.

Joining Madigan in today’s settlement were attorneys general from: Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

ARDC Prosecution for the 3RD type of Currency in the Nursing Home Biz? The trading of beds!

Dear Readers:

See below.  Ken is very concerned he is being prosecuted and singled out because he has made sooooo many public statements about the third currency in the nursing home biz.  In case you didn’t know, the nursing homes are filled with grandmas and grandpas just begging to go home.  Conversely, in other countries this almost NEVER happens, unless the senior is truly homeless AND has no family.

How did we get to this?

The nursing homes say it is “pure coincidence.”  Excuse me for not being naive, but I go to nursing homes, I know people that are in there via my church, my friend’s elders, etc. and I can tell you right now, about 80% are begging to go home.  They want to go home.  They want to be with family.  What I don’t get is these people are not the untouchables.  Why is there no one to help them accomplish this?

From what Ken says, you can buy an investment in a nursing home group of beds, and you will be given profitability from that.  Now you and I know it’s a scam, but apparently those in the biz get their investors from the houses of worship who are older and have dough and are not likely to stick around 10 years to see the sale in a biz that is undocumented.  So, like a good Ponzi scheme, for the first two years, the investment pays off at 20% per year, then it tapers down to 10% per year, and the owners of the scam keep the last 25% saying the home has changed, there are no profits, but when the building land and property is sold, you will get your return and then some.  Of course, that never happens.

Ponzi is alive and well and he must have established the 3rd oldest business–investment scams to give the 2nd oldest business plenty of work!

In any case, all of this is a taxable event.

Getting back to our seniors, what happens when grandma and grandpa protest this scheme AND THEY MAKE SENSE?  Come up with a BS, mini mental scheme to put them away and put them on strong psychotropic drugs such as Risperdol, Halodol, Seroquel, Libirum, etc.  Those drugs should be banned from sale to nursing homes!  Gimme a break.

Back to Ken’s position.


From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Sep 10, 2012 8:49 PM
To: Mary Waddell
Cc: “Edward C. Carter” , matt senator kirk
Subject: Re: Thank you again

That you for your support.    I am going to win this ARDC thing.   I am going to win because I am right and we still live in the United States of America.

My investigation of the Sykes and related matters has not terminated.   This morning I was visited by a lawyer who has represented the nursing home crowd and has close ties with them.   Apparently in addition to the Rothner/Kaplan grand jury investigation, there is a new Morris Esformes grand jury investigation.    Esformes and his son were called before a Federal Grand Jury in relation to some prescription drug overcharges to Medicaid and Medicare.    I copied Mr. Carter of the AG’s office so that he can give the information to the IDR investigators who are doing a parallel investigation on behalf of the State.

Once again I got confirmation of the three currency levels that are used by the Cabal to evade taxes.   I’ve given this information to law enforcement previously and they seem uninterested.   What is interesting was the ARDC attorneys questioned me concerning my e-mail in which I furnished the AG’s office of the non-cash currency – i.e. the nursing home bed barter, and the opportunity barter.   Both are very difficult to prove for law enforcement, but have resulted in millions of dollars transferred sans taxes.   As at this point in time I am paranoid I wonder if the ARDC attorneys had a motive that was unexpressed in their effort to ‘shut me off!’   I do not know one way or another, but as I do not believe in coincidences it seems to me that with certain health care provider investigations now disclosed to before a Federal Grand Jury and me spouting off about extra legal currencies – ****.   The fact that I was questioned concerning an e-mail that disclosed this situation sets up a red flag.   The fact that I was asked if I felt the need to repent for doing what any human being and citizen is expected to do sets up a second red flag.  I make no accusation!   I am just exercising my First Amendment Right to discuss this unusual situation with a ‘friend!’   Some people in authority might not approve, but the US Supreme Court in Alvarez made it clear that the US. Supreme Court approves.

Ms. Waddell, it now appears that the nursing home cabal  has been now reported to trade in the opportunity to gain pecuniary advantages.   I was alerted to this situation in the Sykes case when a cabal owned entity was recommended by the guardian ad litem to supervise visitations by Gloria and Aunt Yo.   Why did Mr. Stern (as an example) want supervised visits.   I saw one of the bills that Gloria Sykes received – she was charged for the supervision of Mary’s dog!.    After my niece was fired from a Speech therapy job, I asked a couple of questions and received an admission that indeed, my niece was terminated as the result of ‘her publication’ of the 3rd currency.   (She did not know anything about the 3rd currency, but she got credit  – as she had already lost the job and I did not want her working for these people I did not correct the impression – until now!)

We have our hands on a major miscreant situation.    I have suggested that people write their elected representatives and law enforcement.   Maybe we will find an elected representative who really cares about the elderly and who has learned the lesson that Democracy is not a spectator sport.   I would like to know if my being questioned on the nursing home currency was coincidence or something more sinister.   The nursing home industry is a billion dollar industry and with government involved the health care industry in spades, doubled and tripled well connected nursing home owners stand to make a fortune at taxpayer expense.   It is obvious that the individual political operative does not care – Carolyn Toerpe did not inventory a million dollars in collectibles.  Not only is the United States and the State of Illinois not seeking to collect the taxes but the ARDC is working to shut me up.

Thank you again for your support.

Ken Ditkowsky

A Great Big Thank You from Ken to all his Supporters

Thank you
Every good deed is properly punished.   I attempted to do what was expected of me as a human being and as a lawyer.   It obviously affected the sensibilities of some of the political elite who feel that the elderly are ripe targets for abuse and exploitation.   They thus attempted to separate me from my Civil Rights and my human rights just as they had done with Mary and Gloria Sykes.   When I refused to be intimidated that went after my law license.   The law licenses is not necessary for me to do my duty as a citizen and as a human being – but the loss of it could be nightmare, and a gross inconvenience.   As I am 3/4 plus one *****.
Now that the trial phase of my nightmare has ended, all we have to do is wait for a decision.   This decision could come at any time; however I am informed that it will come in about six to twelve months.   When the decision comes down Ms. Matson will notify you of it.   In my opinion that United States constitution demands that I be vindicated.    The Alvarez case (recently decided by the United States Supreme Court obviates any doubt as to my rights!
As I told the ARDC attorney as long as the Good Lord allows me to live on this planet and as long as the Stars and Stripes is proudly displayed as the flag of the United States of America I will continue in the effort to save senior citizens from predators whether they are court appointed or operate under more primitive motivations.      I also intend to exercise my rights under the First, Fifth, Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution to the fullest extent possible even if it offends such luminaries as Farenga, Stern, Schmiedel, etc.
I appreciate all the support and the efforts expended on my behalf.    I particularly appreciate all who attended the two day attempted lynching.     Thank each and every one of you for your loyalty, your friendship, and your support.    When the chips are down you know who your friends are – thank you again.
Our work is just beginning.    We have to access all law enforcement facilities so that we take the profit from the miscreants.    A good starting point is alerting the IRS as often as necessary to the fact that the breach of a fiduciary relationship is a ‘taxable event!’    Thus, when Carolyn did not report or inventory the million dollars in Au (Gold) coins she created a taxable event.    With interest and penalties the United States Treasury has a very nice windfall.   As Ms. Farenga exposed her and Adam Stern’s culpability ****.    Law enforcement can act only if they know about misconduct.    Democracy is not a spectator sport and our job is to help those in authority to ‘do their assigned tasks’ for the benefit of the public.
Thank you all once again.
Ken Ditkowsky

From Joanne:
And if you get a chance, please check out John Wyman’s book on Amazon — “Against her will” — it details his mother’s struggles, his struggles and the family desperation lumbering under yet another Illinois Probate Court clearly acting without jurisdiction since July, 2009!

There is no doubt the effect on the family is one of demonizing and terrorizing them.  We have stopped the sale of further assets, but eagerly await the court’s determination of jurisdiction.  Let’s see if Judge Fabiano will do the right thing.  I have also asked OPG Sharon Rudy to do the right thing and rather than file a Response to my Motion to Dismiss/NonSuit for lack of jurisdiction, she SHOULD JOIN WITH ME AND DO THE HONEST THING AND DISMISS THAT LAWSUIT!

Exactly what I predicted will happen. Evidence barred by one party is eventually presented….

by the other party.  Of course, you could argue that’s not fair, and it gave Ken a distinct disadvantage, but when you think about the hypocrisy of it all, it shows extreme bias.
As in all case, the underlying facts (without excessive analysis performed), are always crucial to any determination of justice. Simply because you tell one party “don’t go there”–despite the fact these are crucial facts–means the other party, in order to prove its facts, simply has to go there.
Same thing happened with Ken’s trial.
I could also argue letting the ARDC put on its case, and then saying they didn’t have enough time to allow for Ken to bring in his witnesses, was also unfair, except for the fact, the cross examination of the witnesses was brutal.
At the end, one had to wonder, what is it about all the fuss regarding appointing a GAL anyway, since they seem to do so very little–they’re more like a public defender with about 200 cases per day–and why are they getting paid anything anyway, other than a small stipend?
From Judy Ditkowsky–she had some great observations:
Dear Scott,
I understand your frustration at not being allowed to testify.  BUT the fact is that Osorian had disallowed all testimony which he judged to be underlying the ARDC case.  You were not allowed to be in the courtroom for most of this.Nevertheless, the excellent cross examinations of Ken and of Larry Hyman of the ARDC witnesses caused the three lawyers/guardians Schmiedel, Stern and Farenga  to admit that they were guilty of failure to exercise any of their powers to protect Mary.  Farenga even had to admit that she had only seen Mary in her office, because Naperville was too far for her to travel to and Adam lived closer.  Farenga and Stern admitted that they were not present when Carolyn had the safety deposit box drilled, so that they had not protected Mary’s potential interest against Carolyn, even though they knew that Mary had initially accused Carolyn in her initial action of stealing $4000.  Farenga admitted that (representation by) most (guardians ad litem) end after a few months and do not continue with no pay for three years and five months.  In the cross examinations it was brought out that Schmiedel knew that the Lumberman suit was against Gloria only and Mary had no part in it.  Stern made numerous factual admissions which showed that he was not acting in Mary’s interest at all.  But most important  was that the arrogance of Mr. Apostel  (or whatever his name was) allowed Ken to bring in just about everything that Torosian had previously disallowed!!! The result was that Ken got to make his closing statement during the redirect questioning of him as the adverse witness, and THEN Larry was able to make his own closing statement that the three : Schmiedel, Stern and Farenga,  could have merely blocked all Ken’s emails FOR ALL THE USE  they made of them to investigate anything whatsoever.  The implication was that their discomfort was clearly the result of their inaction and time wasting.  Their witness, Dr. Patel, clearly indicated that he, an ordinary family physician, did NOT see anything in Ken’s letter that he thought required him to take action; thus, the letter did not in fact contain anything implying that it was mandatory no matter how the guardians, the attorney for Carolyn Toerpe, OR the ARDC wanted to  parse it.  Only persons who were looking for trouble could even imagine that there was trouble.In the meantime, even Orosian, seeing my demeanor, had to see that Apostel was doing his best to drive Ken into a stroke.  I saw him take immediate though subtle action, once he saw how distressed I genuinely was (I got up and gave Larry a note, and I suspect that I was pale and possible shaking)  and Ken’s color all too slowly did go back to normal.  I do not think Osorian wanted 911 ambulances or a corpse in his hearing room.  He and Hilliken could see that Ms. Black was wagging her fanny at them and emphasizing her bosom to Apostel  every time she consulted with Apostel.   These hearing officers, and hearing officer Mrs.  Williams could see Ms. Black rolling her eyes and making faces like a pre-teen.   Both  men doubtless have much prettier and younger females whose shoes (with six inch heels)  fit doing the same in their offices all day long and are not in need of or in awe of her attempted stimulations.  Ms. Williams probably had my reactions to Ms. Black’s activities.

Until much after the hearing, I was under the false impression that the three hearing officers were employees of the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois.  In fact, they are pro-bono lawyers from big firms — at least the two men are from large and probably national law firms and I missed which firm Ms. Williams is employed by, frankly, because I thought these were the activities that qualified them for a paying job as hearing officers, not their current affiliations.  Taurig-Greenberg, of course, represents many politicos, including, in the past Abamoff, and all of the Indian tribes he was setting against each other.  I think it might have been involved with either Rezko or Cellini but I have not researched that.  Nevertheless, if you noticed, the men’s suits did not come off the sale rack at TJMaxx, Cosco, J.C.Penney, or the like.  Hilliken’s tonsure probably cost what Romney’s, Clinton’s, Kerry’s did.  These are the kind of people who CONSTANTLY have to guard their own personal assets against their own financial managers, their former wives, their former trophy wives, their feuding step-children — and there have been plenty of well publicized cases in the last few years of heirs and heiresses and other business titans who have been dispossessed by family members.  Also, they also probably have to appear occasionally in court, and certainly have to manage the way their cases are run.  If THEY THEMSELVES happen to guess wrong as to which political or economic powerhouse to displease, they could also be hauled before the ARDC.  Maybe they were not favorably impressed by a twenty eight year old twerp almost pornographically rhapsodizing about the “Disciplinary” powers he had been granted.  You and I don’t know anything about the fond family relations that may OR MAY NOT exist in hearing officer Williams’ family, or what depredations her immediate or extended family might have suffered in the recent or more distant past from over-reaching governmental agencies.

So, until they make their finding, which could be tomorrow but is more likely to be six months or a year distant, we do not know what they are going to do.  We do know that in theory, this was not a trial of the ARDC; the hearing officers, however, do have the power to make a finding in which they denote that they expected not to have to use the second day of the hearing at all, and were reserving it only for emergency purposes. Instead  they were forced to listen to the Administrator attorneys wasting their time pretending that an investigation of someone accused of miscreant behavior was properly made by asking them under oath whether they were miscreants for hour after hour, whether they were forced to listen to the administrators’ lawyers reading to them as if they illiterate after they had been told not to, whether they thought that it was appropriate for Ken’s arrival ten minutes late on Thursday would be mentioned when they (the hearing officers)  themselves did not enter the courtroom until 9:40 AM on Friday, and when Black was herself late several times after breaks (when there were no possible issues of traffic or holdups at the front desk).   They may well have noticed that hours were spent detailing a sanctions motion which was declared a non-entity by an appeals court, and they could mention that.  The superiors of Black and Apostel (or whatever his name is) had OFFICIAL eyes and ears in that courtroom as well, such as the lady in purple in the desk behind me, the security guard and even the court reporter.

In short, your support was much appreciated.  Both Ken and Larry are experienced courtroom lawyers.  Drew Peterson was convicted by the fact that Brodsky and his cohort over-reached and allowed in testimony which totally incriminated their witness beyond a reasonable doubt to the one person who took the attitude you or I as a juror would take when faced with a defendant already adjusted guilty by the 11 other jurors — the defendant MUST be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  I did take that position in the one jury trial I was a juror in, which cost eleven other people, many of whom made little more than minimum wage, two days work instead of only a day’s work for the pittance of seventeen dollars a day… and they were very gracious about that because they too wanted to be sure they were doing justice).   When Ken and Larry decided that the case had been made by the unforced errors of their opponents, they did not continue the game and take a chance that they might make forced or unforced errors.  They made points by ending early (a 20 minute instead of a 30 minute closing statement)  and that donkey Apostel surely lost even more points by taking advantage of Osorian’s invitation to use up a few of those ten minutes.

So if the panel is straight, they had all the evidence they needed that the proceeding was a waste of time and money.  If they are not straight, no facts would change their minds!

Judy Ditkowsky

Dear Judy;
I have to agree with all you said and then some.  The case clearly was about the fact Ken was trying to help Mary and bring justice to the table in his own way.  Either a person’s emails are protected first Amendment speech (he did not advise anyone to commit a crime, or hide a murder or anything serious), or they are not.
Either they “get that” or they don’t.  Perhaps Ms. Black was urged on to do this (moronic) duty of a waste of time 2 day trial because the Appellate court, in reaching their decision to overturn the $5,000 sanctions award said in the end to report all of it to the ARDC and let them make a decision.  Of course, the real question is, why did not the the Court of Appeals tell the ARDC to investigate the allegations of lack of jurisdiction in Mary’s Probate case–a most serious error–together with the wrongful sanctioning of an attorney that had never even filed one piece of paper there.  Those would be the miscreants to investigate, not Ken who was cleared of the alleged sanctions violation.
In the end, I suspect nothing will be done well, because it is Probate.  And Probate is too messy, complicated and time wasting for most other attys who have important paying clients and matters.
That is JMHO.  If Mary wants justice, a sister or daughter will have to file the Motion to Dismiss properly (which has been done) and take it up on Appeal (waiting for that), because we all know there is little justice going on in Probate.
And the miscreants depend upon that.
Now from Ken:
As I citizen of the United States of America you have the right to write to the powers that be – i.e. the Illinois ARDC, the Illinois Judicial Inquiry Board, the Supreme Court itself, the United States Attorney, and the Bar Associations and express your opinion on the conduct of the case and the conduct of the people engaged in it.
Contrary to the statements of the ARDC attorneys, the Supreme Court in the Alvarez case ruled that the First Amendment is alive and well.    You do not need anyone’s permission to write to the powers that be and in fact you should express your views.    Contrary to the statements of Ms. Black the border of the United States has not receded and Illinois is not part of the Soviet Union.
What has happened in the Sykes case is a travesty!   The retribution against Gloria Sykes is outrageous, and in my opinion the prosecution by the ARDC against me absolutely chilling.   If you noticed the ARDC attorneys stayed far away from the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Alvarez!   They also stayed far away from Sodini!    This 1988 decision was well known to Farenga, Stern, Schmiedel and the judges.   It has been reported to me that in some courtrooms the judges are actually making inquiry of the applicants for guardianship if the Sodini requirements were made.   That is big progress!  Had the Sodini requirements been observed many of the cases that pollute the landscape would never have occurred.
Let me reiterate – just agreeing with me is soothing to my ego and makes me feel proud; however, I am the choir!   If we want to preserve our liberty we have to make our voices heard.  As it was pointed out by Farenga in her testimony – she and Stern were aware that Carolyn was drilling safe deposit boxes and they were uninterested in making certain that Carolyn did not loot the boxes – neither could take the time to ascertain what was in the safety deposit box!    However, both were Johnny on the Spot to deny the word of family members!    It is interesting that Carolyn has never denied the fact that she took a million dollars in collectible Au coins and never inventoried them.   It is also interesting that the ARDC never investigated that fact before calling me a liar.
No one talked to Gloria, Aunt Yo, the Biddy Estate etc.
Similarly no one ever took the time to follow through on the Petition for a Protective order, or the Edward’s Hospital fiasco in which Mary was brought to the hospital having lost 10% of her body weight.   Even though Carolyn admitted to family members her neglect of her mother, Farenga (and ultimate the ARDC attorneys) failed to do a scintilla of investigation.   Indeed, no one was interested in the fact of Mary’s isolation and her younger daughter and her elderly younger sister were deprived of even telephone contact with Mary.
Indeed – if you care about the elderly and their financial exploitation, I believe that more has to be done than lecturing the choir.
that said – I thank everyone for their support.   I appreciate the fact that so many have expressed it.   I am a minor player in this drama.   As I stated in open Court = as long as the Good Lord (Lady too, can’t be sexist here–JMD comments) allow me breath I intend to exercise my First Amendment Rights.   I will not be intimidated as it is my duty as a human being to speak out and continue to speak out until this nefarious situation is resolved.   I respectfully submit that democracy is not a spectator sport and most importantly participation in the democratic process is a human responsibility.
Ken Ditkowsky

Trial of KDD–A Shameful Act by the ARDC has NOT gone unnoticed

Dear Readers;

One of the first things that Ken did was to email everyone he could and thank them generously for his support and I know that I thank everyone (I can still be next thru such a fiasco, but I know that I will have Ken by my side and I have a few choice speeches for the ARDC lawyers they don’t seem to care about grandma and grandpa as much as they do the pitiful likes of Stern, Farenga, Stuart, Connors, Waller and all their co-conspirators.)

In a way, the ARDC was putting grandma and grandpa on trial yesterday and making it clear that if the legal system set up a Gulag for them, then they had better knuckle under and just be held down and shot up with Risperdol, Halodol, doped up with Seroquel and the likes and just shut up and take it.  So what if they’re left lying in their own excreta for hours in an awful nursing home like some stories I have heard–despite the fact they had money put away for in home nursing care or the govt could pay and much less than a nursing home at five to seven grand a month to the clout.

Ken is right and I’m proud of him standing up to such injustice.

I wish I could have been there for the whole trial and blogged about it, but I bet there was a set up between AS and LB as usual to kick out my blogging, but no matter.

Through the grapevine, I have heard:

Comments, some catty, but hey what’s life without catty comments from the chicks out there:

1) the tribunal was very uncomfortable, shifting all the time and moving about, whenever Ken or his atty Larry made a speech;

2) LB’s shoes were clearly too big and she fiddled with them as if she had to keep them on correctly so she could run out the door at any minute;

3)  Apparently LB wasn’t paying close attention to what she was saying because she listed one of Ken’s unethicals as attacking criminals for their criminal behavior (Freudian slip, perhaps)?

4)  The commission said Ken had no one to testify in his behalf, but everyone in the audience was there for Ken and if asked to step forward would have gladly provided an entire dump truck load of manure on the miscrants and provide a halo, golden robe and wings for Ken.  At any given time, there were between 10 and 20 people in the audience from recognizable Probate action groups.  I didn’t see a single person there for the miscreants.

5) apparently Ken was threatened with being disbarred for being 15 min late (boy are they a crabby bunch), but the other daughter pointed out the tribunal was 30 min late the other day. But that won’t work with them, one of the members is just a member of the public, so you can’t bar them from being a person, but then again, perhaps CF and AS can have them put in a nursing home, drugged and then filch all their life savings in Probate attys fees.  Larry never did ask about the average Probate bill from the attorneys, private and GAL circling the place like sharks in a school.

My 16 year old daughter just got up so I have to go.

take care


From Ken Ditkowsky–

I am moved by your loyalty and friendship as well as the loyalty and friendship of everyone who have undertaken the effort to protect the elderly and their families from government fostered exploitation and abuse.   The officialdom does not want to acknowledge that the elderly are the new Jews of the 2012 Holocaust and as the ARDC attorneys summed it up–  if lawyers do not co-operate in the ‘cover up’ of the policy of denying a senior citizen of her liberty, her property, civil rights and property the public will be reminded of Graylord and the corruption of the second oldest profession.
One of the reasons that I focus on the Sykes cases is that it is a “lodestrone”.   The death of your mother was so typical of what was reported in the ‘underground press!’ as a common event.   Yes, we have an underground press because the mainstream media is unwilling to to expose the people Gloria Sykes referred to as the “whores of justice.”   Indeed, your mother’s protests were just too compelling for the Court appointed guardian and as she allegedly had the ‘loot’ under her control you mother’s life became expendable.   Thus, she was terminated and set for a quick cremation!
According to the Illinois ARDC, to think or speak of the alleged criminal conduct in a manner that someone might hear and prosecute the miscreants is unethical conduct on the part of a lawyer.   I am not making a ‘joke’  this is exactly what Ms. Black and her 2nd chair argued to the commission.   At this point in the proceedings I was extremely ‘spent’ but I was still shocked that in the United States of America any agency of the government could hold our American Constitution is such disdain!
Your experience and that of so many of the targets and their families have been deprived of their liberty, property, civil rights and human rights and our elected representatives are disinterested.   Law enforcement could ‘care less’ except that certain agencies will spend the last drop of taxpayer money to protect those who are court appointed and engage in what must appear to strangers to be a public policy of elder abuse and exploitation.
No – Mr. Bush – I am not ‘cowed’ and I will not shut up!   In 1936 people like me did nothing and were cowed.   The 1939 they were marched into the ‘gas chambers!’   Democracy is not a spectator sport, and those people who fail to take cognizance of history are doomed to relive it!    I am reminded that the inventor of the guillotine was its first victim!
Ken Ditkowsky

Debriefing from the other daughter and Scott

Dear Readers;
Please thank these two individuals for letting me know what was going on today.  As you know, I was kicked out of the trial and I am assuming it was a SLAPP violation except for the fact, I think the trial skills of the Administrator and staff are somewhat lacking.  Just my humble opinion.  I have to say when LB was standing up there and asking essentially, over and over, “Is there any basis for saying (you are a liar, you didn’t serve notices, you are lying about the laws and case law” blah, blah, blah–f course the miscreants were going to put down their heads, not look at the hearing panel and say “no.  I’m brilliant.  I don’t lie and I would make sure there is jurisdiction and  I served summons and complaint for the partition and the apportionment.  Duh.  Is she kidding?

Gloria informed me that CF’s body language was not good.  Like PS and AS, there was a lot of slouching going on and none of them looked at the hearing panel.  Of course, you have to do that when you are lying.  Your eyes typically and involuntarily dilate when you lie, and liars on the stand never look at the judge.  But I digress.
Apparently, Dr. Patel found his way to the 11th floor of the ARDC offices (I hope he got paid $400 per hour for that, I have to talk to him about being an expert witness), and he said he got the letter from Ken and did nothing with it.  What else is new?  Dr. Patel heals people. He isn’t interested in their family disputes or court disputes for that matter.

None of Scott Evans (close family friend to Mary), the other daughter who was told to show up at 11 am or any witnesses for Ken were used.  The other daughter and Scott think it’s because Ken only scheduled 2 days so how it works is that if the plaintiff uses up 2 days, that means the defendant gets 0 days.
Sorry, that’s not how it works.  The subpoenas served on every person should say the trial begins on day one and continues from day to day until it ends.

I do patent and trademark work and do trials in Law Division (highest dollar value) of the Cook County Circuit Court.  All parties are heard.  There is no, we scheduled it for 7 days and the defendant does not get to go on trial. That is impossible.  The trials continue from day to day until the plaintiff rests, then the defendant typically asks for a directed finding, then the defendant puts on his case.  Since I have heard from Gloria and Scott, then Atty Hyman told me it was over, I assume it is at the point where KDD asked for a directed finding, made a closing argument with respect to Plaintiff’s case, and it is over for now.

KDD should have reserved his right to put on his case and his witnesses.  But what is the point?  The other daughter will testify, the subpoena was defective, the Sodini notices were defective, she was never served with a proper summons and complaint for the Partition or Apportionment action and it was too late, blah, blah blah.  I saw little of case law going on in this proceeding. It was really legal light. (my apologies to Leah Black, but you know….)

So keep on checking back.

I am going to check with Larry tomorrow for his details.

But in the meantime, the body language reports continue. Other daughter says that CF was looking down, slunched over and looked down (obvious sign of lying).  She says that Dr. Patel said he did nothing with the letter from KDD other than dumping it into the file (which you know from yesterday he had problems leafing through without the help of his “office manager”.–love those docs!).

If LB is bringing a case against KDD for writings with “an obvious disregard for the truth” she needs to watch more cable and Dish TV.  Everyone knows there is a ton of BS in the world, and no reason to get uppity about it.  Officer Cammeron was not impressed, neither was anyone else. But they all keep the emails “just in case.” Has she heard that pixels bounce around in cyberspace for free?  That’s right, no obligation and no cost.

Oh, and here’s something funny.  While I know body language is important, and Scott knows it too and so does the other daughter, being a reporter, at one point they all got bent out of shape over this and told the witnesses they could not even glimpse into the courtroom for that!  Amazing.  I have heard you can’t listen to another witness’ testimony, but body language?  Are they kidding?  I’m not even sure that is right.  The reason for exclusion of witnesses is to make sure testimony is fresh and truthful.

But to say you can’t even look at body language?  That’s not in any rule I have ever seen.  Makes the ARDC look corrupt.  Oops!  I can’t say that any longer according to Atty Hyman.  I have to say that makes it look like the person has deviated from laws, morals or ideals.  I can do that.  I have quick words in Wordperfect.  I’m glad that someone is using technology.

Does this indicate a cover up too?

Just asking.

Mr. Hyman has officially informed me that “corruption” is a pejorative term and I shouldn’t use that in speech (way to go!) or I guess on this blog.  So like Ken who says “frugal with the truth” for lying, I guess I have to define corruption as not adhering to a set of ideals, laws or morals.  We need a new word because the miscreants just can’t handle it.  I would tell them to put on their big boy and girl Pullups, but perhaps that’s too pejorative too.

I really need to write a whole new dictionary based upon probate.  Maybe the Probate Sharks will help me with that.  I see my stuff on their blog right away, and I am glad for that.  Bless them and all the other probate blogs pointing out corruption or a “failure to adhere to a set of ideals, laws or morals.”

I really didn’t know I need a whole new dictionary (besides Wikipedia) for being a lawyer and blogging, and for using pejorative terms such as “corruption” and “lying”.  Okay, that’s funny.  LOL.

I know you are all waiting–the trial of KDD

Dear Readers;

Okay, this is a blow by blow from yesterday.  Because I am atty, and because I am running a website, I might have a few restrictions more than the average bear, thank you Yogi.

BUT, I have heard from the other daughter, Scott Evans and Atty Larry Hyman (who has asked I say on the blog he is a great atty and he is–definitely hire him), the trial is over and I get to blog about it and let you know what happened.

See below.  You’re gonna love it.


Ken ditkowsky. The evidence will show no jurisdiction. (Came in late to opening argument already in progress and darn, I missed the $13 deal at Lakeshore Athletic club.)

KDD continues

the evidence will show that the guardianship petition was never heard, and the notices were never sent out or complied with.  No jurisdiction means no judge or GAL is acting with true authority..

PS will argue that Ms. Sykes was in the courtroom, but HW did not serve her properly either.

Why did he not bother to serve her properly?

I have the right and the responsibility to bring this to the attention of law enforcement and when any citizen of the US has had their rights, their human rights, their civil rights, their right to life and liberty taken away without due process, then I have the right to complain to anyone and everyone.

the flag is my right to complain.  I can complain as loud and bitterly as I am able.

How can this happen in the US?, why is this happening?

I have a right and a duty to bring this to the attention of the authorities.

I am still complaining about this.  There are people sitting right here who are complaining about this in the courtroom (referring to the people from NASGA, Probate Sharks, etc.

Speech ends.  I believe LB or Apoltol whines about the fact that Ken went into Jurisdiction and that will not be part of this proceeding.

First Witness:
The Administrator calls Peter Schmeidel

LB asks him for a brief description of his background.


I’m an atty.  I attended John Marshall law school.  (Note to Larry and KDD are in parenz–What I want to know is if PS and AS worked at the OPG, were they buddies there?  Did they work together?  Was one the supervisor of another?)

Employment history.  Worked at people law office as an attorney

worked 11 years at public guardians office ultimately in charge for 7 years

I mostly practice guardianship and probate.

I am testifying pursuant to subpoena

I represent carolyn toerpe.

Mary was adjudicated and there has been ongoing contention litigation.

Mary has other living Sykes relatives.

I could swear at this point he referred to Gloria as Claudia.

He then explains what a guardian of person does vs. guardian of the estate.  The guardian of the person makes day to day personal decisions such as where the ward goes and what she can do, etc.  The guardian of the person takes them to doctor, etc.

Guardian of the estate is responsible for financial side.  They are responsible for the assets and inventories and accounting.

Assets and inventories done

Carolyn T was and is Plenary Guardian

Fist retained.  Early 2010.  Feb 2010.  Mary already had been adjudicated.

LB: when was the first time you met KDD?

PS:  At end of April 2011.  I received a letter from him.  Before that, no contact.

LB: look at Exh. No. 3

Have you seen the letter before.

This is a letter I received address to Dr. Patel which was copied to me and 2 other people, including the two court appoint guardian at litems.

I received it end of April 2010.

Is it a fair and accurate copy?  A:  It is

LB then reads this letter into the record.

Did I read that correctly?  A: yes

Other documents were enclosed with it.

What is this document?
A letter.  This was an attachment.  It is a true and accurate copy.

Next page


What is this document?

A.  Entry of medical record.  Med exam June 5 2009.   I also received this.  It is a true and acc copy.


A: It is a 2 page document, report of physician form.  Filled out in guardian ship matters it is a ccp 211, it is an option of the doctor, of whether that person can make personal and finanacial decisions.

This was filed out by dr. barry rabin.

Was this attached to the letter and this is a true and accurate copy?


This is a form prepared by Mr. Ditkowsky seeking to enter an appearance.

Q.  What is this attachment?  Is it a true and accurate copy?  A: Yes

there were no other attachments.

No objection to admit the letter.

With respect to 2637.

Q: Had this appearance form been filed?

A. It had not been filed.

Mary had already been adjudicated disabled, she was adjudicated in dec 2009,

Q. Could Mr. D. File this appearance form?

A.  Mr. D. Would have had to go thru a procedure.  There is a procedure.

She could not have the ability to contract, so they would have sought leave of court.


Q:  Have you received any email correspondence from Mr. D?

A.   I received numerous emails.  From Mr. D.  Sometimes daily.  Sometimes 5 to 10 per day.  In total probably over 100, perhaps over 200.

(The objection should be ***seeks facts not in evidence**–If LB wants these in evidence to talk about she should have them there to talk about instead of just speculating a number).

KDD makes general objection.  Good, but overruled.

A. In general the emails complained about accusing us of being corrupt, not turning over assets, accusing us of intercepting mail, etc.

Witness then starts in on jurisdiction and lies and says that was addressed in appellate brief and appeal was denied.  (Get him on that great big lie, it was dismissed on formatting!  The Order Dismissing is on the blog).


Q. About halfway down the page, it is a forwarded message.  Talks about disapation of the Mary Sykes estate.

A. I saw it Feb of 2012. It was on my computer.

My email is on there.  Kd sent it to me.  I had received many emails before.

KDD: no objection to this email.

What are you moving into evidence.

The entire exhibit 25.

No objection.

1393.  A. that’s the second page of the email.  Looking at the last paragraph.  You reported to me that judge stuart gave lip service to demands of gal’s and PS.

PS took a risky course of action.  They then talk about the relationship between the bankruptcy proceeding and the forceable action.  Gloria agreed to leave the house on a date certain.

KDD objects to the emails containing heresay.  It is all overruled on heresay.
Once you file the bk, there is a litigation stay, including guardianship litigation, I had filed a partition action. (No you didn’t, that came later).
We were attacking an apportionment agreement.  Mary syes entered into an apportionment agreement, which Gloria received all the money $750,000 (not correct– she received $500,000. $1.3 million was the settlement total, $500M went to attys, $200M to pltfs bridge loan funds and gloria was left with $500M.

We could not proceed with the partition action, we could not proceed with the apportionment agreement, due to the automatic stay in bankruptcy so we sought to lift it.

(Ask him if he served Gloria properly with a summons and complaint for either proceeding–the partition OR to invalidate the apportionment agreement.  Gloria will testify she was not served.  Or, she was served the famous Pizza flyer by CF’s husband who is not supposed to serve anyway.  There is also no motion or grant of a special process server in the file.  And, the file’s a disaster with 80% of it missing.  )

Judge Stuart entered an order…..

Gloria had transferred funds that were supposed ly withheld from the settlement and those were in Indiana, and Gloria wouldn’t say….,

He is getting so convoluted.

The bankrupcy judge agreed to lift the bankruptcy stay.  It said we had the right to pursue the partition action.

(He forgets conveniently that the federal court the partition is held up because chase has a court date in October 2012 to get live testimony on the fact that while Chase is foreclosing, Chase no longer ownes the mortgage–that is all screwed up.  Deborah Soehlig at least admitted to Judge Hollis during a bk hearing that no one had any idea how to do this partition because it is so complicated, and that her firm didn’t know how to do it.  At least she was being honest.  The partition proceeding is a complete mess.  The mortgagee must be a party to it, but Chase sold the mortgage, Chase is not the mortgagee any longer.)

CT must comply with all orders.  CT received a modification of the stay to proceed with the eviction order?

Q.  Was this modification order entered?  Judge studart had violated the automatic stay?  The letter was many months after the automatic stay had been lifted.

Q. Any basis to say that the modification order was wrong?  A.  Absolutely none.

Exhibit 27.

In the middle of the page.

Q.  Have you seen this email before

A.  It may have come from Mr. Stern.  I recognize it as coming from Kenneth Ditkowsky.

A.  It’s not from him.

A.  LB will seek to have the email admitted via mr. Stern later.

Q.  Mr. Ditkowsky said you intercepted mail and that was a crime.

A. Maybe in jan 2011, there was a hearing and judge stuart asked me to send orders to Gloria.  Gloria she did not want to be emailed documents from court.  I sent an email to her.  I was supposed to give Gloria the contact information re dr. shaw.  I also sent her orders because that judge had not approved the first or second current account.  First current account and the inventory were still unapproved.

On the envelope, there was a  little yellow thing (sticker) from the post office.  In court the next time, it came back.  Then Gloria accused me of intercepting her mail, but in reality it just came back in the mail.  I mailed it out and it came back is not intercepting Gloria’s mail.

Q.  Is there any basis to accusing you of intercepting Gloria’s mail?

A.  Absolutely none.


No further questions

KDD cross examines.

Q.  Are you aware of 755 ilcs 11a et seq. In general.  It is the statutory scheme for probate and it talks about the notice requirements.

A.  Yes, I am very familiar.

I am very familiar with the venue provision.

Q.  The venue provision requires that if mary were living with CT, then she would have to be served in Naperville.

Q.  Isn’t it true that they did not follow any of rules in appointing carolyn toerpe.

Hearing Chair; Let me state this.  We will not making this a trial of what is going on in another court.

We cannot give you anything that would give you an advantage in another court.

(At some point KDD nails PS on the fact that KDD is not a party and never has been a party to the Sykes probate court.  He has no other case in which he can “gain an advantage.”)

(He said there were 100 emails of complaint).

I have no other case pending in which I am a party in any other court.

Back to questioning PS.  If venue is correct in the place where you live?

Discussion ensures over “gaining an advantage in a court”.

Do I have any pecuniary interest in the Sykes cases?  A. No.

Did I ever file any claim seeking anything in the Sykes cases?  A. No.

But PS is trying the “I don’t like what you’re asking, so I’m going to ignore and say what I  want to diversion tactic.  Nice going, buddy.  KDD’s on yr butt.  And Ken, it’s okay to tell the witness the day will go much faster and he will be excused much earlier if he would just answer the question directly and you intend to get all your questions answered.  It’s not hard).

Q. Who filed a Petition for Guardianship?

A.  Petition was filed on behalf of CT

Q. Was there a petition to have Mary Sykes declared incompetent?

A.  Says lots of stuff, does not answer the question, but finally he admits it.

Q. Was there a petition for Gloria Sykes to become guardian?

A. Not sure if it was ever heard.

Q. But there was a Petition for guardianship.

A.  It did not name either the two sisters.

Q.  Was gloria syskes ever served with a copy of the petition?

Q.  do you have a copy of the document.  Is there is a copy of the document.

Q.  Is there a copy in the court file?

Q.  (Is the time, date and place) on the Petition?

Q Is there a certificate of mailing in the court’s file?

Q.  Did you find a certificate of mailing?

He doesn’t recall any of this

Q. Did you send out a notice to gloria?

A.  I had nothing……

Q.  Have you read the Sodini case?

A.  Is it your position that Sodini allows a person to be allowed to be found incompetent without notice to her two sisters?

Hearing chair sustained the objection to asking about Sodini and notice.

(Go back and ask if the complaints you received by email were about the fact there was no jurisdiction.  Then it would relate to direct examination, otherwise call him in your case and ask again.  What a dweeb).

Q.  When the motion came for hearing, was she represented?

Q.  When mary sykes was adjudicated, was this done pursuant to procedure of the probate act?

A. Yes

A.  When mary sykes was served, she may have been residing with Carolyn.

(Ask if a copy of the summons is in the file or the affidavit of the server?  It is not.  Judge Connors did not review these documents prior to holding the hearing, as most judges normally do.  She would have seen that Mary’s Avondale house was listed, but Mary had resided in Naperville for many long months and by then Carolyn declared Mary would never go home)

A. It is my memory she was residing with Carolyn at the time. (Good, her Chicago address is on the summons)

A. There was a summons issued for mary sykes.

I believe that there was a summons that was served in naperville.

The sheriff was directed to serve many sykes on Avondale?  A.  I don’t know where the sherriff was directed to serve her.  And that was gloria’s residence.  Gloria’s residence– from time too time.

Apportionment orders.

Was there an order.  There was an ordered entered in law division that was approved.  We call it the lumberman case.

It was about gloria and mary sykes.

This is the one at 6016 n avondale.

Did you research this lawsuit before you filed it? (Referring to partition action)

Lumberman’s sued only gloria syskes.  Mary was added as a counterplaintiff.

The initial lawsuit against gloria sykes.

Then her mother was added.

The lawsuit was a suit for declaratory judgment (of no insurance).  It was suit based upon an insurance policy.

Gloria had taken out a policy on 6016 n. Avondale where she lived.  Mary sykes was not on the policy.

(Make sure you make it known that Mary did not live there–she lived at 6014.  Mary’s house was 6014 and Gloria’s house was 6016 and the adding of Mary to the property at 6016 was as a testamentary convenience.

Final order entered in Oct of 2008, this probate proceeding was in Jun 2009.  Was there ever a petition file was 5/2-1401?  Was there any request for post judgment relief?

After 30 days is a judgment entitled to full faith and credit?   A.  Generally.

All sorts of objections as to giving a legal opinion.   (When Ken asks a question about a legal opinion, it is blocked, when LB asks a question, Ken objects and it is always over ruled, indicating clear bias from the tribunal.  Even the Probate court is more careful (Judge Stuart) to avoid this type of bias.)

Q.  Glorias proceeds were frozen.  What was the legal basis for that.

A.  Before I was in the case, there was a motion filed with JMC and the assets were frozen until further order of court.  This $272,000 was only a portion of what Gloria received.

Q.  Was any appeal filed.  A.  No appeal filed.

Q.  Were any post trial motions filed?  A.  No post trial motions.

The court  just took and entered this order.

Q.  Isnt’ it true that the only way to attack judge mulhern’s order is by appeal, or 1-1401 that alleges due diligence and a meritorious defense.  Otherwise it is entitled to full faith and credit, correct?

A.  In most circumstances.
During the time of any disability, then the time to bring it, the order is stayed (tolled?).  And there was also a contract.

A contract with a disabled is always voidable.  (I’m not sure about that.  It seems to me once a Guardian is appointed, then the person is represented and the tolling of limitations stops.  The only exception is, if the ward becomes able bodied again, then she will also have the right to sue at that time.  I suspect this witness is again being frugal with the legal truth).

That is what we are attempting to void.

There was fraud perpetrated and Gloria got her mother to sign a document and Mary did not have that capacity.

This was based upon the testimony of dr. shaw.

Q.  Was the opinion Dr. Shaw made before or after this contract was done?

A.  Dr. Shaw examined her.
(Mr. Frugal with the Truth isn’t saying Dr. Shaw finally examined her in fall of 2011!  Not 2008.)

(All of Dr. Patel’s records and information are heresay–Dr. Patel did one mini mental in 2007) ask him to explain what a mini mental is.  Then ask him about Mary’s hearing and if it were tested and if he knew Gloria was told Mary had to go to learn how to hear again and how mini mentals are contraindicated for those with hearing or vision problems! It’s all on Wikipedia).

Exhibit 3.  Dr. Patel says she makes sense.  This was June 2009.

The order was entered October 2008.

KD points out MS makes sense when conversing on any topic PS adds she had been diagnosed with dementia.

KD nows tears apart the letter and it doesn’t say he represents Mary Sykes.  A. Based upon this letter I joined to get sanctions.

KD: At the time you joined in sanctions, you knew that I had not filed an appearance.
A: yes

KD: You knew I was never in front of Judge Connors (JMC). A. You were asking for leave to do that.

Q. You also knew that before the petition, I had never even been in that courtroom.

A. I am there most days of the week, I don’t recall seeing you.

Q. Yet you joined in a rule 137 motion and it was overturned due to lack of jurisdiction.

PS doesn’t recall it was overturned due to lack of jurisdiction (yeah, right) another big lie, he is looking down, won’t look up.

KD:  You claim 200 emails.  Q. Did you file any lawsuit over the 200 emails?  Did you file any complaint with the police?  Any email asking not to send you emails? A. All answers to these are negative or don’t recall.

Q.  you’re aware that because mary sykes relative were never served, there is no jurisdiction.
A.  Witness denies this and is looking down at his hands.

No redirect.  PS storms out of the courtroom looking down.  He always does this when he is caught.

The Administrator calls Adam Stern;

Now, this is where it gets boring. AS will have to answer basically the same stuipd questions that PS did.–OMG I predicted that and I was WRONG!

AS is sworn in.  Let’s see how much Ken can go after him in a half hour.  I am an atty.  Attended Valp school of law 1994.  Briefly worked for legal service of NW Indiana and in Mar of 1995 I was employed by Cook County OPG, until may 2002, then I went into private practice, 5 years and then sole practitioner.  I practice primarily guardianship and probate law.

I was appointed special guardian ad litem in 2009.  I had been appointed gal probably about 800 or 900 cases.

Q.  How many of those involved estates of elderly persons.  A. Over ten years, my guess would be about 200, 250 cases.

Q.  What are duties.

A.  In August of 2009 JMC or Judge Maureen Connors appointed me special guardian litem out of an issue that arose regarding mary’s placement and could I assist.  Cf was the other gal and she was out of town or unavailable.

Q.  Did you continue in your role as special guardian.  What are other roles.  At this point there are two GAL’s and we share duties. (No, both are in court or are supposed to be there, and they churn the bill all the time.  Often CF does not show up and says she has a dental appt for her kid.  The kid must have no teeth by now.)
The gal makes recommendations to the court regarding what is in the best interests of the ward and is the eyes and ears, according to case law.

Carolyn Toepe filed for guardian.  Exhibit 1

Q.  Is this the petition for gal that carolyn toerpe filed?  Yes,

A.  admitted into evidence.

Q.  What happened after carolyn filed this petition. A. There was a court date and I was appointed special gal.

Q. eventually a cross petition was filed by gloria syskes.  A.  I believe it was with the OPG (on it).  They eventually amended this to gloria and kathy bakken.

Q.  What is the general process.

A.  Initially you file a petition,
the alleged dp needs to be notified, a summons has to be served,

then the court appoints a gal and then informs the dp of  their rights, etc., the notice gets sent out and then the judge hears the information and makes a decision.

A an Illinois doctor examines the disable person.  With respect to the notice, the notice should be in writing.

A. Is life testimony required?  A.  No.

Q.  How common is it for live testimony?  A. Probably ten to fifteen percent of the cases.

Q. Was there a contested hearing regarding the issue.

A. Gloria filed a cross petition, in her petition he alleged that mary was disabled, but in court she vacillated.  Mary sykes did not contest the petition for disability.

A. Was there live testimony.  A. No live testimony from a doctor.

The Ct had a doctor fill out the CCP 211.  And there was also a neurological report, that also supported the need for adjudication.

Gloria also asked for adjudication.  (Dr. Amdur–but Gloria did not pick him, although AS says all the time she did.)

Objections on heresay, LB explains she is not going to use this for the truth of the matter asserted.  Just using it to explain the procedure.

A. Mary sykes was found incompetent.  There was no live testimony.

Q. Was dr. amdur’s report used to adjuciate mary sykes disabled?  A. Yes

Exhibit 2.  Is this the doctor’s report of dr. amdur.

Is this an accurate copy of this report.

Objection heresay, foundation, they just said they’re not submitting it for the truth.  I don’t see it as a verbal act.  LB counters it was used to declare Mary incompetent and it is a court document.  It is admitted over objection.

Q.  How did mary syskes get to be appointed. A.  It was on cross petition of mary sykes.  Read back the answer

yes, it was on the request of mary syskes.

Q.  When did the court enter the order?  A.  dec 10th 2009 by  JMC.

Q.  Was there an issue with her appointment?   When did the hearing take place?

A. In nov of 2009 hearings were held regarding care plan of both petitioners.  After those hearings, judge appointed     Carolyn over Gloria (Wrong.  Gloria’s hearing was Nov. 18th, and Carolyn’s was on Dec 7th, she didn’t have her oath or bond and it was late so they entered and continued the appointment to dec. 10th.  Duh.)

Q.  Was there an appeal.  A.  The appeal was dismissed, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.  The document is on the blog.  A 341 non compliance dismissal.

Q.  Did you know of KD prior to all of this?  A.  No, never met him or heard of him.

First page of exhibit.

Letter from KD.  Q.  When you received this letter 2632.  What was attached to it. Can you look at other pages?

Q.  Was the appearance form been filed April 2010 letter?  A. Not sure, but I think no.

Q.  Did you contact mr. Ditkowsky? A.   I called to talk about the letter and the attachments hired by family and friends and he went on that he had a right to represent mary sykes guaranteed by the constitution of the the US of america.

He told me he represented her previously.

I contact PS who was the atty for the guardian, I drafted a motion for the court, I think asked for sanctions.

I visited mary sykes over the weekend.

I was curious if she knew who Kenneth Ditkowsky was.  Foundation overruled.  I met with mary sykes, and asked her if she knew him.  Objection.  Chair: Lay some foundation.

Q. When did you meet with mary syskes?  A. May 25 2010
Q. Was anyone else present?  A. Initially the daughter and the son in law,  but I met with mary sykes alone.
Q.  What was the purpose?
A. To ask Mary about KDD
Q. What was the result?
A. She did not recall who he was.
Q. Was there a hearing (on the petition for sanctions).

Exhibit 4.

Q.  What is this document.

A.  Transcript of the proceeding on jan 2010.  I have reviewed the transcript.  Is this an accurate copy of this transcript.

KDD.  Objection (to line of questioning)  This is already in evidence.  Transcript is in evidence.

Q.  On the 6th page 1510 starting at line 10, counsel what is this additional appearance, and I want to prepare and represent her.  I sent it to everyone to let them to let them know I am going to be representing her.

Q.  Did Mr. Ditkowsky tell the judge he represents mary sykes.  (Objection, stupid question, the court knows who has filed an appearance and who did not, come on now)


Q.  What about the sanctions?  A. Mr. KD was allowed to file a response to a motion on sanctions.  And to send a copy of the order to 2 individuals.  Mr. KD did not file a response.  He did not file a response, he filed a Motion to Vacate order appointing guardian, numerous pleadings (FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE), and other documents not responsive to the motion for sanctions.  (He filed pleadings indicating the court had no jurisdiction under Sodini and rule 137, and the latter is what the Appellate court determined.  JMC had no jurisdiction over an atty that had not filed anything in her court.)

Q. Was there another hearing?  A. that was in June 2010.

Look at Exhibit 5.  Transcript June 2011.  A. This was date of next hearing.

LB. Move exhibit 5 into evidence.  No objection.

Q. Exhibit 6, is this the order entering sanctions against KD?  A. yes, on june 23rd.

Move exhibit 6 into evidence.  No objections.

Exhibit 7.  What is this document?  This is the court order from Judge Flemming.  This is the amount of sanctions.  This is an accurate copy of that order.

Move to enter into evidence. No objections.

Q Was the sanctions order entered later overturned?  A. Yes, it was.

Q.  Is this the appellate court order vacating sanctions against Mr. Ditkowsky?  A. Yes.  It is an accurate copy.

Move to admit exhibit into evidence.  No objections.

Q.  Since being special GAL, any email communications from KDD?  Yes

Q. When did you first get these?

A.  That weekend I started getting emails.  The number varies.  Some days I receive numerous emails, some days none.  I have saved 200 eamils.   (Ask him if he saves them and prints them out?)

Q.  Do those emails make accusations about you and the GALS and the judges in the case?  A.  Yes.

Exhibit 7.  Q.  What is this?  A. This is an email dated Oct 7,2011.
Q.   How did you get the email. A.  I get numerous emails.  I send them to others and they come to me.
Q.  Do you recognize the email address.  Whose email address.  A. KDD
Q.  Had you received emails prior to this?  A. Yes
Q.  Is this an accurate copy?  Yes.

Move into evidence?

Objections?  KDD:  It says email from gloria.  I don’t see Mr. Stern’s address on this.

Q.  Have you received emails from KD where his name does not appear?  (Come on now, even a 2nd grader knows this is impossible!  The email is altered.  The peanut gallery is snickering).

Q.  Did you recieve this email.

A.  Objection.  Foundation.  That it came from Mr. Ditkowsky.  There are conflicting lines as to who sent the email from gloria to AS.

I think that a proper foundation exhibit 11 has not been laid and cannot be laid with respect to this piece of paper.

On top it says from Ken, on the bottom it says from Gloria.

It seems to have been altered.

(As him to pop open his laptop and show it to you).

Object to the reading of this.  If there is a particular question.

(LB: wants to start reading this again.  She is waste of time.  No question pending and just the reading of a document.)

LB:  I don’t know the point I stopped. … she starts reading…

Deprive a citizen of his or her civil rights, invites corruption…

Not accounting for a bag of gold coins.  When stern visited the pg home, stern had a duty to report unusual activity to the court.  The doctor shopping.  The federal court is not an appellate court is not an appeal court for the probate court.    …

This is polluting the probate court….  I am not playing dead or going away…

At the very least they are accessories to criminal conduct….

Finally a question.
Q.  Is there any basis to KD said there was “doctor shopping”, any basis to lack of “jurisdiction” any basis to mr. Ditkowsky’s actions in not accounting (objection, that’s not what he said).  AS answers all in the negative–no basis to any of this.

KDD.  Objection, LB is asking him opinion as an expert.  She has not put him up as an expert.  Is there any basis that for more for a legal conclusion.

She is trying to call him as an expert and she cannot do that.  It’s imporper.

Q to AS:  Is there is ant basis you did something improper in Probate court.

A.  I do not think so.

Q.  Is there any basis to KDD’s statement that wire fraud, mail fraud and rico going on.  A. No.

Q.  Have you tried to intimidate KD or any other atty?  A. No.

Q.  Are you aware of CF intimidating any other atty.

A.  I am not aware of cf (LIAR) of cf intimidating any other atty in the sykes case (LIAR–CF said she wanted me removed because didn’t want to get “papered to death” meaning I would represent Gloria vigorously and she didn’t want to have to deal with that.  Then she started maneuvering to make the my disQ procedure longer and longer out.    And then she got Gloria in a tizzy.  Gloria’s still in a tizzy over that one).

Q. On Dec 27 burglary..

KDD:  Object on foundation.  Best evidence.

Exhibit 12 is admitted over objection.

Dec 21, 2010.  There appears to be a letter that Mr. Ditkowsky was to send to the ARDC.

To ARDC.  There must be a great deal of money involved in Sykes, the harassment of Gloria continues on a daily basis.  The actions against Gloria are……

An email detailing more mischief.  The illegal injunctions entered in circuit court.  These communications resulting in rehabilitation to her home tied up and stopped, and payments not accepted by the mortgage co….

The frustration the public has with us.  9th day of 21 day stay.  The voidable order freezes ms. Sykes accounts, and now with the burglary.

I have no idea what the ARDC can do to keep this from happening.

1960’s starts talking $25, and starts with a Greylord story.  This was called “selling the judge” Dec 28th fiasco, would have not occurred if the judge were made aware of some of the fact.  The stuff which was the subject of the burglary.  If I were paranoid, I believe that…..

Involves a great deal of money.

Q.  Does the Sykes case involve a great deal of money?

A. AS, laughing, no.  The estate has no money.  The only great deal of money is the money gloria took from her mother.  (Oh, a dodge),

Q.  Any basis to say she (Gloria) was ambushed in court.  A.  None.

Q.  Are you aware of judges receiving bribes in the syskes case?  A. No, no,,

LB reads:  Feb 11, 2012, mother isolated again.

Q.  How did you first come to see it (this email)? A.  It was sent to me by Mr. Ditkowsky.

Q.  Is this a true and accurate copy.  A. Yes

Ask that this be moved into evidence.

No objection.

LB:  About 5 sentences down, after reading and doing my own investigation….

Posterboard elder financial and abuse case……

(Get him to admit that Gloria was taken care of by her mother for 10+ years)

The very person.  Any elder abuse?  To you knowledge?  Have you participated in any financial exploitation?  AS answers no to each of these.

Has CF or CT engaged in any of these? No, no, no.

(You should get him to admit that there was no hearing date set on the petition and no one got notice of the hearing…  The hearing date was not set in 30 days as required by law…..  Judge relies on reports on GAL (BUT is this clear and convincing evidence, doctor’s reports are hearsay, so where is the clear and convincing evidence) And what of the fact there was a conflict bet Gloria and Carolyn and perhaps CT kept Mary from court. )

Q.   Is this  an accurate copy of the email?  A.  Yes.

Objection. From KDD:   I don’t know if this is an original email from me.  Best evidence would require him to produce the best copy.  Data copy stored in a computer.  Any printout that this reflects the data accurate accurately.

I don’t know if this true and correct or not.

There is an original beyond the printout.

LB: cites Rule 1004(3) original in possession

Farenga should testify as to where the fax/email came from.  What about the underwriting and the fax encryptions.   What about that asks Mr. Chair?

There are obvious marks, circles etc. on the document.

Mr. Stern you notice e circled.  Was that on the document.  I received the email with the stuff on it.  I did not receive the cynthia farenga stuff on it.

Was the bottom fax line removed?

Admitted except the fax description and the handwriting.

LB starts to read again:

Time is short and getting shorter, gold is over 1500 per oz, that means there is almost a million in conins, a class 1 felony.  A gal is the eyes and ears of the court.

Q.  Did mary sykes own gold coins?

A.  First in aug of 2009.  Sometime after mr. Kd letter, he started raising this issue.  I wasn’t informed of the gold coins before this.  KD was the first person to raise the issue of the gold coins.

Q.  Did mr. Ditkowsky ever give you any proof of the gold coins?  A. I did ask family members about it.  And I asked other people about it.

Q.  Did you steal any gold coins belonging to mary syskes?
A.  I have not seen them.  I have not assisted anyone else.

Exhibit 17.  Email dated may 11th.

Q.  Have you seen this email.  A.  I have seen the email, not the cf printout, I have seen the email.

Q.  How did you come to see the email? A. It was sent from KD .  May 11.

Q.  Except for the writing, is this an accurate copy, A. yes.

Same objection.  The note on the bottom.   Forwarded message to KDD.

It’s clearly an altered document.

Chair wants to admit it.  He says the testimony as to foundation is sufficient.

LB reads on:  First paragraph, even at this late juncture….why does the case require 2 GAL’s….. there is a large cache of gold coins that is uninventoried and can be split.

Is there any basis blah blah.   (Why wasn’t this investigated) Good admission, AS has not be paid, and he has not been paid any fees.

(Have you asked the FBI or any other investigator to look into the cash and gold coins)

new witness, police officer tom.  It is after lunch and I missed a bit going to the bathroom and getting a drink but I didn’t want to leave KD alone.  Everyone else left and went to get drinks and food during a half hour break.  I don’t understand how the ARDC gets away with this.  In Circuit court the court reporters have a union and they don’t go for more than 3 hours, with a one hour lunch break.  If the court wants 4 hours, they have to get another court reporter for the afternoon.

Starting at about 5 min after testimony beings.

Q.  What contacts did you have with the Sykes family in Naperville?

A.  I looked into all our prior contacts.  We had 13 prior contacts.  We had all well being checks.  Assess her independently.

One court appointed guardians came with us as well.

13 calls prior to that.

Q.  Any indication there was any basis for abuse of mary sykes?  A. No.

Q.  When did you first meet Mary Sykes?

Early 2010.  Myself  and rita manning.  We went to the adult day care.  We observed her and then we spoke with mary for about 30 minutes.

Q.  Were you able to ask her living arrangement?  Did you see any signs of abuse?  A.  I did not see any signs of abuse.

A.  We were all introduced to here, she again asked who we all  were a few minutes later and she had to ask adam stern who he was even tho she had met him several times before.  (what about her hearing aids)

A.  Her physical health appeared to be fine.  She could not appear to recall things we told her minutes earlier.

A.  She said that her husband would pick her up soon, but then she remembered and she said he was dead.

A.  We then prepared police report.    After meeting with mary syskes, we discussed this  with KD via email.

Q.  What about the emails from KDD?  How often would you get emails from him?
A. They come in cycles, we would get a bunch for awhile, then nothing, and then we get a bunch more emails.   Aprrox, not sure exactly.  I have about 1000.  Some are from other people, some are from him.  I don’t know the exact number.

Q. What is the general subject matter.

A.  There is some conspiracy.  But we really have no interest to sykes because her home isn’t in naperville and she has no real property here. we really don’t have an interest.

(Not in our jurisdiction).

We weren’t interested.

Q.  Email jan 17, 2009.  How to pay off your congressman.

How did you come to see this email initially.

When did you receive this email.

Jan 17, 2012.  Do you recognize that email?  A. Yes

Q.  had you receive emails on prior occassions?

A.  He might have another email address.

I recognize the email as from KDD

Move exhibit 24 into evidence.

LB then reads an email:

I suspect the plenary guardian has dipped into mary’s money and will not spend dime one.  Someone will have to account and that will be the million in cash gold coins and jewelry.

Is the email similar to other emails?  A.  Yes.

LB reads more.  “Two gals were appointed and they decided that Mary was incompetent and Mary rubber stamped her decision.  Then her incompetency was rubber stamped.”

Email talks about financial exploitation.  Everyone profits, the judge, the gals’ the attys.

They are going over the emails.

( I don’t understand the relevance of the police officer in napervilee got emails?  What’s the deal there?)

Objection.  Mr. Cammeron’s email address is not the one.  His email does not appear on the printout.

LB will try to lay more foundation.

Q.  Is this your email address from Tom Camerron?

I forwarded what was sent to me to Adam Stern (I don’t’ get this, what is Adam supposed to say)?

That was on my email.

I asked that there should be something going on in the court proceedings.

TC testified that the email is true and accurate to the best of his recollection.

(Why is there Prudential security in there?  I don’t get that?

There always seems to be one of them here. Do they get paid more for that?  There’s always 2 of them)

Q.  Do you have the police report.  KDD.  Objection  We did not get a copy of this police report and we did not know that was to be used in evidence.  (Larry should have objected to facts not in evidence).

LB: this was produced in April and is bates stamped pages 1929 to 1936

She struggles to show KDD a copy.  The hearing Chair does not get a copy.  She’s supposed to have a copy of the report for everyone and he’s not supposed to be testifying to facts not in evidence.

LB is looking at the report

Q.  commander this is your report you used before you came into this room, correct?  A. Yes.

Q.  It included not only talking to ms. Sykes but also ken ditkowsky?  A. Yes

Q.  After all your investigations, you did not charge anything, and you informed kd that you were not going to charge anyone.  A. Yes

Q.  Based upon your own investigation nothing was going to happen.  A. Yes.

Q.  Throughout the course of the 13 different visits, each time you found ms. Sykes to be in good condition.  After an officer makes a visit, they have to make a report.

And in these reports, did you find any abuse?   A. No.

Larry Hyman cross examines.

Q.  You have never met KDD before today in court, correct?

A.  I either spoke to him on the phone or via email.

Q.  Did you send any email to spam folder.  A.  No, you never know when an email might become important.

Q.  Did you find that what Mr. Ditkowsky was doing, did this violate any laws?  A.  It did not .  If found it annoying , but not harassing.

Q.  You know that there is a criminal statute that if people make harassing phone calls or emails, that is a violation of the law.  Are you familiar with that law?  A.  Very familiar.

Q.  There are plenty of people in naperville that are annoying, they make annoying or harassing (communications, then) you would make a decision or you would go to the states atty.  Was that done?  A. Yes.  Q.  But out of that, no charges were filed, correct?

Q. these emails didn’t affect your day to day operations in your dept.  A. No.

Q.  Other than clogging up your inbox.   A. Correct.  Q.  It doesn’t prevent you from investigating allegations of abuse?  A. No.

Q.  You found them annoying, you found them informational.  You were aware, there was an ongoing dispute.  A.  I was from the emails.

Q.  You never had to arrest gloria, right?  Nope.

Q.  At any time that you had gone thru the emails, did you ever ask mr. Stern, whom you learned was the gal, did you ask him to ask the court stop this lawyer to stop sending me this stuff?

A.  I believe gloria was the one that was cautioned not to send me anything further.

Q.  Are you aware of any trips of ms. Mary sykes was taken to an emergency room?
A.  We searched the fire dept. records and found one.  (That doesn’t mean she was taken by car, duh).

I only show one in the fire dept’s records.  There was only one.

Q.  That corroborated that assertion of mr. Ditkowsky, correct?  A. Yes

Officer excused.

Discussion ensues over calling Mr. Stern.

We did not want to keep ad am stern here very long.  We discharged mr. Stern until later.  He’s a 10 minute cab away, then we can call AS and then.

Judge stuart will be here at 3:30 and cynthia farenga.

Then mr. Harmon addresses the court.
I have my own I have to be back to my office by 4:45.  My partner is involved in some case.  Then tomorrow I have to be at a relative’s funeral at 1 pm.

From Mr. Chair:  Condolences for the family member.  I was asked for leave to file an appearance.  I will not change the proceedings.  The parties need one day total.  We sent the second day to be safe.  Mr. Hyman you just filed your appearance this morning (what does THAT have to do with anything, the guy just died last night and they have 24 hr rules, you know.  Larry Hyman might not get into Jewish heaven, ya know what I mean.  They’ll put him with the Roman Catholics or worse, the Protestants).

Hearing Chair: We will not reset any times.  We go the full day today and then the full day tomorrow.  No excuses.  (Interesting, courts change time for attys all the time and then just take another matter in between.  I don’t get this.  Those people come to work every day.  This has been going on for about a year.  As many judges have told litigants when an atty has to do something, everyone just has to adjust and deal with it).

We intend to go to 5 today.  And then 9:30 to 5 pm.  You can file an appearance earlier today at the last minute and I am not changing the schedule..

Take a break until a quarter to two.

Oooh.  Bad Wifi.  Nothing available.  Only 2 bars.  Why am I not surprised?

Prudential security is here two guys.  They get extra pay for coming to the proceeding.  If I had my building guy come to a proceeding in my offices , it would be a short Mexican that can also fix a faucet and a toilet.

Recess, waiting for adam stern.  LB and LH working out some stipulations on evidence.  (Finally, that is what they should have done yesterday to not hold anything up).  Make people pop open laptops then to be sure that emails are from KD and no one else and where did they go, etc.

If anyone’s coming tomorrow, there’s $13 parking at the Lakeshore Athletic club over on I think it’s Water Street, just around the corner.  I don’t know of any cheap parking around here.

LB to chair, just gimma a minute or two, we are tring to expedite questions.

We are working out the authenticity of emails.  This is regarding Exhibit 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 27, 28, 29, 34, 35, 36, 38 –all without objection.

One of the points made by the miscreants is that they have no 2 yr statue of limitations on 1401.  But if the court lost jurisdiction on her in Dec 7, 2009, then the statute is not tolled.

LB goes to exhibit 18.  Specifically 1333 on that exhibit.  At the bottom, original message from KDD.   LB reads: As you are aware the NASGA and the friends and family that there is something wrong when a Protective order entered against CT, yet she was appointed (paraphrasing), it suggest impropriety.  Serious neglect, admitted by the GAL.

Q to AS:  Did you engage in impropriety.  Did you defend any neglect.  (Nah, he just did nothing).

Q. Is the isolation to prevent inquiry into her gold, cash, jewelry, etc.  A. No.

A.  She has been made available to anyone any time I have been asked.

Q.  Any basis to prevent inquiry into her competency? Any basis is to isolate?  A. No.

Q.  Are there any gold coins, jewelry or money that has not been inventoried?  A. No.

LB reads on:  Yesterday afternoon I received a telephone call.  I was notified that the court was to appt me as gal district court judge.  I was notified that the court would appoint me as GAL in this case.  I would like the court….

Q.  Are you aware that KDD was to appoint him as guardian ad litem?  A.  A motion was filed, GS, SE and SF filed a motion requesting that KDD be appointed as gal, it was dismissed as moot because the underlying complaint was dismissed (he leaves out the fact it was without prejudice and Gloria is working on filing it again.

LB reads on:  I would appreciate that you provide the following:

reports to authorities. In dec 2010 mary was taken to edwards hospital having lost 10% of her body weight, this was report mr. Stern and Farenga.  Q.  Did the PG wait until mary was seriously ill before taking her to the hospital.  A. There was a conversation with a cousin who related to several others.  We found there was no factual basis to it.

Q:  Did the pG make you aware of MS illness.  Did you report it to the court?  A. There was nothing to report.  At 92 she is going to get sick and have illnesses.  Harmon objects that this is purely speculative.

Same email.

No. 3.  Mr. Ditkowsky.  Concerns regarding non inventory.  It has been alleged that the gold coins were kept in the box.  In the box were cash, gold coins, etc.  It is assumed that the PG removed the contents.    Any basis to the valuables alleged to have been stolen?  A. No.

Q.  Did the PG empty the safe deposit box  without a court order?  No she did not do it pursuant to a court order.  (The answer is yes, she did it without a court order, she had it drilled out and she removed the contents, even tho Gloria’s name was on the box).

(Ask him if Gloria’s name was on that )

LB asks about Mary not getting legal representation.

A. I am not aware of anyone keeping mary from having legal representation.

Exhibit 20.  It is clear that the sodini notices were never given.  The probate court is without jurisdiction to seize those assets.

Then Ken’s siloquoy about how lawyers should be honest and candid rather than sneaky and sleazy.

They should have rectified the problem in an expeditious manner.

The fact the Soldini is ignored is one of the most serious issues in the Sykes case.

There was a great amount of communications sent in the guardianship abuse cases by mail and wire.

Then he talks about separating a victim from his or her property.

Fiduciaries should be interested in his or her property.

The US atty might wish to bring a RICO case.  A month to finish the trial, but the IRS filed a lien and my client and I received nothing.  But federal prosecutors can whisper *** to scare others straight.

Q.   Are the notices be required to be given prior to a hearing.  A.  Yes, but written notice NO.  ( Are you kidding.  Look at the statute, it has to be written.  You list the names and addresses and then you serve by mail or in person.  It does not say list phone numbers and voice mail addresses).  A.  But it’s not my part to send it out.  It is the petitioner’s responsibility.

Q. How did you take Mr. Ditkowsky’s statement of scaring other miscreants straight.

A. I assume miscreant is referring to me.  He always refers to me when he uses the term “miscreant” (no, he does not, you are one of several).

Q.  How did you take the story about federal prosecutors?

A.  As a threat.  (But how can you threaten someone with valid legal action?)

Q.  Please look at 21.

(Why would he take this as a threat when AS alleges he did nothing wrong?  Who is threatened?)

LB reads on:

The expose will follow.  The intimidation and harassment is memorialized in stone.  The court had no jurisdiction to rubber stamp ….. the isolation from friends and family are part of any conspiracy to shorten mary syske’s life (what about excluding gloria, kathy and yolanda).

A.  I don’t report everything to the court.  I might report severe ilnesses where people have long term illnesses.  Q.  What types of illness.  A. Long term psychiatric hospitalizations I might report.  Or neglect by the guardians.

Q.  Have you been part of any attempt to isolate or shorten her life?  A. No.

Q.  Are you aware of any attempt to deprive her of stimulation?  A. No. (What about low functioning adult day care?)

A.  Ihave not harassed mary nor has anyone else.  I have not harassed anyone.

Lb is sniffing, why is she sniffing.  Second sentence.

LB reads on.  They have prevented you from employing an attorney.  Extreme lengths they have gone thru. Is that true?  A.  No.  Gloria sykes has had numerous lawyers.

A.  I attempted to determine if she wanted a lawyer.  She did not.  She is a very confused woman with a high degree of dementia.  (What about the videos?)

1252.  Second to last paragraph.  Says with the videos on the internet they cannot be altered or oppressed.

(Ask him about videos.  She does not seem to be highly confused and demented).

Talks about the Jerman standard.

Have you seen the videos.  When did you see those videos.  I saw them in late 2011.  How did you come to see the videos.  Had they been ( produced them in court–the judge said–I can’t look at that in court.  )

what did you do after seeing the videos.  Then I contacted cf.  Did you have the internet.  No and I did not attempt to have them removed.  (But PS did, and he admitted it on a transcript.  He got some removed from youtube.  I put them up on Vimeo where you can’t get them down.  Let’s see if LB shows them to the tribunal.  She will if she’s honest.

Exhibit 28

email starts KDD to AS start with last paragraph.  I have copied PS without the sodini notices, there is no jurisdiction, and when it is examined, it will be examined by the clear light of hindsight.

The federal courts are not tolerant.  That said, if you do not unwind this problem, Ms. Sykes will seek a court order to hold you in contempt and damages.  Monday is a court holiday.

Q.  Were you involved in an illegal partition in the Sykes case.

A.  No.

How did you take mr. Ditkowsky’s statement that Ms. Sykes would seek a court order.

A. Two parts to that.  I know the actions in probate court did not conflict with the orders in bk court.  I know it was all proper.  I was frustrated.  This is a continuing pattern.  There is another action in BK court, it never ends, I am called upon to defend or refute.  Any tribunal anyone can try to find or defend.  It takes away from my family and my work (wait a minute, isn’t this your work , probate and mary and gloria)

oh, now we are to safe harbor.

LB reads, as a courtesy to mr. Stern and mr. Schmeidel….  This investigation they cannot quash and they have no clout.  An intentional violation of the automatic stay.

Q.  Do you have clout?  A. Laughs,  I don’t think I have any clout.  Judge Hollis lifted the stay so that the guardian can continue the action in probate court to Partition (but wait a minute, the mortgagee has to be part of the action and you notified Chase, but Chase no longer holds the note on 6016, you didn’t mention that, now did you Mr. Stern.)

Exhibit 34.  In the middle of the day, an email from kdd, subject illinois supreme ct writs.

She reads:
The continued  isolation from her family and friends,…. promulgate elder abuse.  The isolation is to create isolation, desperation, and loss of will to death.  This means they intentionally can accelerate the date of death. ….  How do you justify the decision to isolate Mary to accelerate her death?

Q.  Any basis to saying mary has been isolated?
A.  Many people think that there is no guardianship and they can see or call the ward whenever, but they have to make a reasonable request.  There is no isolation plan in place.  Everyone has to work with the court and the guardian’s wishes.  Some people are willing to work within those parameters and other are not.

Q.  Were there actions reasonably calculated to create depression and loss of the will to live?  A. No.

Q.  Were you trying to commit homocide.  A.  Absolutely not.  Offended by that statement.

Q. Any basis for the isolation?  A.  I have tried to set up visitation and work something out.   It has worked to everyone’s satisfaction (3 years, are you kiddin?  Kathy was told she can’t see mary because she took the wrong side. Josephine is terrified if she does just a bit wrong, she will be cut off too) Stern is lying.

LB email;  Now they talk about the 2 gal’s. the gals’ are joined at the hip and keep friends and family away.

AS says he talked to mary and she says she does not want representation.

LB continues reading the email:  AS called me up and threatened me.  My wife overheard the phone conversation and she was shocked at his threats and how he wanted me to stay away from the case.  Stern was then joined by phone calls from Schmeidel and Farenga, threatened me and tried to keep me from looking into this case.

He suggests the estate and the loot is the basis for all this.  Talk to the Coopers, they suffered a similar experience.

Q.  Is there any basis to this?  A.  Mary did not want a lawyer was a truthful statement.

Q.  Is there any basis that you called up KDD and threatened him.  No basis to that statement.

Q.  Have you seen any greylord type of activities (what about coming from the judge’s area all the time and then the transcripts show coaching between the court, PS and the gal’s., JMC helping Carolyn with her health care plan and trashing Gloria’s, other than that, nope).

Dr. Patel is on the phone.  KD state his objection for the record.  They are setting up for phone testimony.  So how does the panel determine if the witness is lying.  Can the witness see any documents?  It’s crazy!  No exhibits, just a call in?  Yeah right, More of the same Probate same old same old, deviation from the proscribed Rules of Court, Civil Procedure…

Phone testimony has to be either agreed to in advance, or its simply cannot be used.

witness–Dr. Patel, over the phone!  This should be interesting.  Now we have the court reporter sitting in the witness seat, they have a phone headset from the 1970’s and what’s that?  A safety pin holding up the court reporter’s mic.  Now that’s something I have never seen.  What a court room!  What a mess.  KDD objects to the witness on the phone routine.  LB’s kidding.

Court reporter is present in Dr. Patel’s offices.  Dr. Patel is sworn by her.

Oh and of course we have some ancient phone system that they’re going to use.  1970 for sure.  No matter.

Okay we have the witness.  Jeff Torosian, the Chair, introduces himself.

There is a court reporter with him as well.  So he has to get on speaker phone.

Madam court report rose pisano, what company and phone pullman usa court reporting, 312-346-1626.

Can you swear the witness.

dr. patel is sworn.

Lb, state name and spell it for the record.    Please give us a brief description of your background.  My name is Dr. Patel and I graduated form college in Bombay India in 1973.  Did residency in england from 1972 to 1977, then came to US and started a family practice.  Have been at resurrection med center since 1980.  He does family medicine.  7447 w talcott ave, suite 216 chicago, 60631.  I am board certified in family medicine.  I am testifying pursuant to subpoena.

Q.  Do you know Mary sykes.  A.  She was my patient for several years.  She was a patient in 2004.  She was my patient in 2009.

Q.  Did you receive correspondence from kenneth ditkowsky.    He is looking for the correspondence.  Let’s see if he can find it.

Exhibit 3 was faxed to your office, did you receive it.  Dr. Patel, what exhibits are you flipping through?

A.  I did receive Exhibit 3.
Q. Did you have the opportunity to look thru this.  Is exh, 3 also in mary sykes’ chart?

Q. Did you have time to look at all this?

He obviously does not recall.  (Fax machines can screw up),

LB: exhibit 3, the first page should have some numbers on it. 2632.  It’s a letter from KDD to dr. patel.    Letter form kenneth ditkowsky.  The date says April 30, 2010.    Is that the date of the letter and that letter is addressed to you.

2633.  Do you see that document?

Dr. Patel wants to ask office manager about all the faxes he gets.  LB tells him he can’t do that during his testimony.  (See?  That’s why this is never done.  He wants to ask his office manager about records, he can’t find anything in his own files without assistance, and most of all, he just doesn’t care and probably has BS himself from the IDPR and in no way wants to help the ARDC, maybe even if they do pay him his $500 per hour for testifying, which I bet they didn’t).

bev asked why isnt he here and it’s probably because they won’t pay his $500 per hour to be here (Larry, ask him how much he charges to testify), The court reporter is directed to take away all papers except for the Administrator’s exhibits.  Exhibit 3 is several pages.  He isn’t sure what he is look at. First he is directed to find the KDD letter in Mary’s records.  Then he is directed to look at the package from LB.  He is obviously confused and can’t do it.  If he were in court, LB could lay the docts side by side.  No dice with this phone call thing she wants to pull.

If he was board certified in the 1970’s that means he is between 70 and 80 right now!  It will be sometime next spring before he finds the 11th floor of the Prudential towers.  It’s a difficult place to find and get to, unless you’re in a cab nearby.

Did you receive a fax earlier this week.  He can’t find it.  He needs his office manager to help him out, yadayada.  The hearing chair says he will have to call him to come in downtown to testify.

Dr. Patel is asked to have the court reporter show him the documents. Turns out she left.  Okay, this is realllly funny.

The Chair stops all this and directs LB to get him down to court to testify.  Like that will happen.  As Ken says, it will be Spring before Dr. Patel finds the courthouse.

AS is called back in to testify.

Mr. Stern is still under oath.  (As if that helps his statements.  He still looks down, avoids eye contact with the panel, etc.  Smooth Move, ex lax!)

Exhibit 36, moving right along.  It’s 3 pm.  In the middle of the page Feb 24,   cites some case and LB reads on:

It is now clear that the Sykes has to presented as part of the UN efforts to preserve human rights.  There are numerous human rights violations (with sykes and the elderly in the US).  AS rule making is an intolerable derrogation to mary’s human rights.

All but $4,000 of mary’s money has been dissipated. I have a real fear for mary’s life.  They do not need mary any longer.  Mr. Bush’s mother was murdered.  Abortive attempts to continue an investigation of the Sykes case, farenga, stern and others got the court to enter orders without first obtaining jurisdiction.

To speed up death is to engage in murder.  If there was any good faith, then mary could freely talk to her mother.  Requiring a gestapo agent to be present to talk to mary is absurd.

Q.  Are you aware of any violation of mary’s human rights.  Were the sisters denied visitation.  A. No and no.

Q.  Have you made any arbitrary rules in the syskes case?  Has mary’s estate been dissipated?  A. No….

No, no, no.

Q. Have you received pecuniary benefit?  A. absolutely not.  Were you trying to intimidate mr. Ditkowsky?  No.

Q.  Are you aware of anyone speeding up mary’s death?  A. No.

Q.  Any basis to a gestapo being present to give up state secrets (but he is laughing, and it makes a point)

emai from KDD entitled reflections/promise.  LB reads

That email states, everyone has always wondered, if I were in NSG during 1936, what would I have done.  What I do as a cat or jew or arian having the right hair color, size and texture, and I would have behave diligently. I have now had the opportunity to observe my mettle.

From the look of her face, I must have met her expectations.

I refused to succumb to their…..

I was sanctioned $5,000 for exercising my first amendment rights.

The court lacked jurisdiction.

I am working on a civil rights lawsuit against stern, schmeidel and farenga.

42 usca 1983.  The complaints by stern and schmeidel have born fruit and I need to exercise my first amendment rights.  The safe idea is to accept a punishment and close my eyes that a senior citizen has had her rights taken away.  The other path is to stand up to the ARDC and exercise my first amendment rights.

Mary sykes had a treasure trove, not inventoried.

PG is a fiduciary, a fiduciary taking funds creates a tax liability.

I am glad that I am glad that I am standing up, and I encourage many others to also do it.

How could this happen in America?

I am asking law enforcement to investigate diligently and honestly.

Q.  Any proof of substantial treasure trove?

A.  No proof.

Q.  Have you protected anyone who has stolen funds?  A. I have not protected theft of the funds.

Exhibit 39.

Blog posting.  From Ken Ditkowsky.  Why sykes is such an import case…

From  What are they reading?  What the heck is going on.  Everyone in the peanut gallery is snickering because they know the email didn’t come from there, it came from  All the posts come from there.  My firm website is

Now a fight over the blog..

This will be admitted into evidence.  You have not tied it up that Mr. Ditkowsky.

A blog printout.  Are you kidding.?

At least I didn’t get booted out.  Yeah!

LB says I am not a witness.  Yeah!

But she can’t keep the blog out.

Discussion ensures over the blog.  Ken finally pipes up and says he doesn’t know if it’s from that blog.  Hearing chair says he’s gonna admit it.  LB pipes up and says I’m on the witness list (but I don’t have a subpoena)

the more I think about all this, the more I think it was a set up from AS to get me to have to stop blogging.

Well it worked.  LB didn’t know she was being set up but AS does it all the time.

He figures out a way to stop my blogging.  Another SLAPP from the miscreants.  They are getting more subtle.  They think I won’t think or notice it.  But you can bet I’m faxing LB tonight and pointing out their lies, lies, lies.

He gets the Probate court to do it, he gets the judge to motion the deputy to do it.  He knows how to shut someone up.

Such a little *******

How not to conduct a trial

The other day, I witnessed first hand why one should not ask for telephonic trial testimony.

First of all, it’s expensive.  You need to have a court reporter at both ends of the hearing.  In this case, one court reporter was downtown, while another was at the witness’ office on the North Side of Chicago.

The Witness clearly did not understand what was going on and what he was expected to do.  The court, via a telephone link, asked the witness to be sworn and that was done.  But after that, the witness could not figure out the exhibits, and when he fumbled with them and his own files, it was clear the matter was a lost cause.

Next the court asked the court reporter to hand exhibits to the witness, it turned out the court reporter had left the room and had transcribed nothing!

Word to the wise:  Unless the testimony is short and without exhibits, DON”T ever ask a court to do a telephone deposition.  It only turns into a mess.  Hearings are somewhat okay by phone, but there is simply no excuse for the attorney asking for an evidence deposition in advance.

Oh, and if your witness is a professional, PAY the professional their typical hourly amount for testifying.  The professional knows all the attorneys are getting paid–except her or him.  It’s insulting.

If you want your witness to do a good job, pay them and have them come to court.

Just a suggestion


Going to the circus. Day 1 of KDD trial before the ARDC tribunal

Dear Readers;

While I can’t tell you what is going on at trial until it is over, I can tell you about format and formalities.

The reason I can’t tell you what I’ve blogged is because the witnesses have been sequestered, although I don’t know why because THERE WAS NOTHING GOING ON TODAY THAT HAS NOT ALREADY BEEN HASHED OUT OVER AND OVER ON THIS BLOG.

What’s interesting, is typically all the witnesses are warned not to talk about the case, and that they have been sequestered.  That did not happen.

I got kicked out about 2:30 pm, well, because you know me.  But primarily it was due to snickering from the peanut gallery (the audience) and neither the hearing panel nor atty Black could figure it out, so I guess we were all out of order, and I got kicked out because I might be a witness which is crazy because no one told me I was on any witness list.  Ken already confirmed I am not on his, LB never told me I am on hers.  I have not received a subpoena, and it’s too late for her to subpoena me (7 days advance notice is standard), so I have no idea what she is thinking.

It gets even worse.  If I stick around, she can call me, because, well, I’m there.  BUT if she kicks me out, then to get me back she needs a subpoena.  Hmm,sometimes life is hard and just not fair.

Anyway, I faxed her about a number of issues in the case, which I won’t relate right now, because I don’t want to be accused of influencing the witnesses or a tribunal or anything, but I gotta tell you, this is about the worst put together case I’ve ever seen.  It’s not organized.  Exhibits were not agreed to in advance, which could have been easily done.

It sure ain’t federal court.

I wish I could go tomorrow, but so far, I’ve been banned.  And I blame Adam Stern, as usual.  He always seems to figure out a way to throw me out of the court or get my laptop taken away or whatever.

I’ll let you know what I hear tomorrow.  All the peanut gallery is there, all the major blogs, from Probate Sharks to NASGA, but no one types like I do.  Such a shame.


take care


What makes a Court a Court?

(if  you are having problems looking at these documents, download the Gdrive software from

Dear Friends;

Today Atty Ken Ditkowsky answered the question for me, “what makes a court a court?”  why do we even have courts?  after all, they’re expensive.  the lawyers can be a pain in the butt.  I personally don’t understand sometimes why I have a Sullivans in my office that is 4″ thick and just filled with small print of all the laws, rules and regulations simply pertaining to mostly the Rules of Procedure in court–and that’s only Illinois.  Do people realize we have 5 sets of rules just for our own Cook County Circuit Court? 1) the Illinois legislature; 2) the Illinois Supreme Court; 3) the First Judicial District (Cook County and Suburbs) 4) Cook County Rules and 5) Local Rules for the Daley Center.  You don’t have to wonder why lawyers are nutz.  There’s 4″ of nutz for a Chicago lawyer to worry about.  But I digress, let’s get back to the concept of the court system, in general.

How did that all happen?  Long ago we had the justice with a sword, the machete, the guy that was bigger and meaner, we had brawls in the street.  But somehow our large brains (and perhaps the urgings of women) got everyone to agree, violence is not the solution–we must be civilized.  We must have Rules.  Then, we have to go to Court.

Okay, got that.  And the legislatures passed laws, and we formed the US based upon the principals of democracy, due process, a constitution guaranteeing the people rights, whereas before only the royalty and nobility had rights.  As in Alice in Wonderland, once a royal said “off with your head” you were a goner.  That concept wasn’t that long ago.  Of course, we could include the Magna Carta in 1215, but how many of us recall that document?  And it wasn’t allowed to be in general use by the public in England until the 18th century.  Not exactly a coup for the average Joe and Jane out there.

Many have already told me that perhaps Jurisdiction and all the rules is “a technicality” (thank you Scott).

But I have to vehemently disagree.  Many things are technicalities, and I know probably 90% of them in general legal practice.

JURISDICTION IS NEVER A TECHNICALITY.  It is a right that the people have fought for for millennia over the whims of the nobility and wealthy.

We have “due process” in the US, and if you know of a soldier or someone that’s fighting now, that’s exactly what they’re supposed to be fighting for–the rights endowed by our legal system to protect the commoner from oppression and whims of the nobility or “clout” (okay, I have to admit I don’t believe in war or violence, but that’s for another day, another debate).

In any case, Ken Ditkowsky is right and the ARDC and the miscreants are wrong.  So utterly wrong, I have no words for all of this.

Scott Evans asked me the other day if calling the miscreants “criminal” was over the top and if so, how so.  I had to tell him, not only is it right on point, but it is probably an understatement.  In my view, they are certainly America’s “Most Wanted” at this time. What is going on in our Probate court is worse than Greylord.  Not only have they commandeered our most precious asset in the US for piracy–our Circuit Courts, BUT they are the worst form of criminal, forming evil, greedy cabals, not investigating the financial abuse and exploitation of seniors, they create the crisis in our country where seniors are left to languish in nursing homes, alone and isolated while millions are squandered on probate attys fees, GAL fees, nursing home fees.

So, Ken I send you 1,000 angels for tomorrow.  You can do this.  You can fight for those that have no voice, for seniors that have asked for an independent attorney, for seniors that have asked for a family attorney that they have loved and respected for years, for seniors that are competent and have advance directives but those directives are ignored in Probate Court.  For our only last hope of civilization and that is due process.

Do it, go for it.  I am by you 1000%


Major Victory for KDD!–Justice Connors admits Lack of 14 day notice IS JURISDICTIONAL!



Dear Readers;

One of the things I have noticed in Probate Court is a total lack of respect for our laws.  I have seen judges say they’ll grant an Order for Possession against relatives and other beloveds living in the residence of a disable person, merely to get them out and sell the house for attorneys fees.  I have seen it myself.  These people have rights, and should be treated with respect, in addition to legal respect, which is their due process right to a hearing and notice of a hearing before they are dispossessed.

Continuing on that theme was Justice Connors’ deposition.  She completely stumbled through the Probate statute.  She had not reviewed this case at all, it was clear.  While she admitted that Sodini was in fact jurisdictional, she thought there might be exceptions when in fact, Buttercup, the Illinois legislature eliminated those exceptions.  Further, she admitted she did not inquire into the summons and complaint before appointing a Plenary Guardian!  Almost all judges I have seen do that.  They always ask the attys appearing before them, was the defendant or respondent served, let me see a copy of the summons and complaint, is this where s/he resides, etc. and so forth.  The court simply cannot take jurisdiction without service of a proper summons and complaint.

Judge Connors never looked at that issue (on purpose).  She did not know that Mary was at Carolyn’s and CT had declared Mary was no coming home, which means Mary needed a summons for Naperville, not Chicago, and further, that is jurisdictional too!  Then the whole case had to be moved to Naperville.  That is Constitutional Law 101, first week, first year.  That’s where all law students begin.

Ken pointed out the fact that the hearing date was supposed to be set within 30 days of filing a Petition for Guardianship.  That was not done.

And then we have the notice to close relatives issue.  That was not done.

Justice Connors excuse for all of this is that the “other daughter” wanted to “fight everything”.  Okay, but this is a court of law, correct?  And instead of having street brawls and turf wars, civilized society looks to its court system–but ONLY if the court system has integrity.  To flout the laws with corrupt courts invites anarchy and violence.

LB also made the misstep, in my opinion, in that she only asked about if Judge Connors thought she did anything corrupt and made it clear that would only include “taking bribes” or taking money.  But corruption is more than that.  It can just be one serious or a series of minor deviations from the law.  I believe corruption is severe where jurisdiction is lacking and the court looks the other way.  Jurisdiction is our most fundamental of all rights as US and Illinois citizens.  It protects us from railroading, wired courts, corrupt courts, etc.

Here, it turns out we have two grounds to defeat jurisdiction, as pointed out by Ken: 1) the summons was directed to the wrong address and 2) no 14 days Sodini notices were served on the elderly sisters.  Serious, fatal errors which demand an immediate dismissal of the entire case or a non-suit

Then we have a whole series of deviations from law, due process and procedure; 1) parties were not allowed to speak at hearings; 2) the other daughter is and has been constantly sushed up.  generally the court gives parties equal time, but not in in THIS courtroom; 3) repeated handwritings from Mary she wanted independent counsel, and the court ignored those; 4) GAL’s and opposing counsel that outright lie about facts in the case all the time (see my 10 page table of torts on this website) 5)  the other daughter repeatedly asks for discovery and that is denied; 6) the other daughter’s discovery requests are denied; 6) the other daughter’s notice of lack of jurisdiction is written all over–apparently by the court–with notations it is too late, etc. when in fact the court must take a serious look at jurisdiction each and every time it is brought up.

The other daughter needs to do an Emergency Motion to Reconsider and get the deposition of Justice Connors back in court where she admitted that 14 day notice IS jurisdictional–together with the numerous other missteps apparent from the record.

Justice Connors shows clear bias against the younger daughter because she “fights over everything”, but as long as the younger daughter does it in court, that’s supposed to be the place for it, isn’t it?  And the younger daughter does have some serious gripes with the court that are clearly being ignored, namely, jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction is not a complex issue–you either have it or you don’t.  And if you don’t have it, the case must be nonsuited or dismissed.

Of course that means huge liability for all the attys involved and the parties they represent, but that’s the way it is.  Don’t go and fight in a courtroom if you’re not going to do honor and justice and put those big kid Pull Ups on!

take care all



From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Sep 5, 2012 8:26 AM
To: Tim Lahrman NASGA
Subject: Supplement to motion

In reading the Connors deposition it is apparent that she reveals that 1) even though she was in the Probate Division dealing with incompetency for eight years she is not familiar with the statute that she administered.   2) that at this point in time everyone is aware that Mary Sykes (and Gloria Sykes’ ) rights were grossly violated by Connors, Farenga, Stern, Schmiedel et all.
Corruption is much more than just taking bribes.  As law enforcement and media all have copies of Connors’ deposition everyone can judge if there is corruption in the Circuit Court of Cook County.     
To fill in the gap between the admissions of the Administrator and Connors’ deposition I filed the following supplemental document
In the Matter of:                                                            )
            KENNETH KARL DITKOWSKY,                )
                                                                                    ) Commission No. 2012 PR 00014
                        Attorney-Respondent,                          )
                                                No. 642754                 )
Supplement to Motion for Finding
            Now comes the respondent Kenneth Ditkowsky and moves to supplement his Motion for a Finding upon the following basis:
1.      That on Tuesday, September 4, 2012 the written transcript of the Evidence Deposition that the Administrator, noticed and took of the Honorable M. Connors was delivered to his office.    A copy of the transcript connoting the words and phrases of the parties is attached hereto and made part hereof as exhibit 1.
2.       That the respondent herein desires to Supplement the Motion for a Finding with the Evidence Deposition as the Evidence Deposition contains material that bears upon the rationale for granting the Motion for a Finding and eliminating the need for a trial in this matter.
3.       That the respondent is charged by the Administrator of making false charges against judicial officials.    The respondent’s defense is that he has an absolute right to express his opinion pursuant to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution even if that opinion were to be dead wrong and terribly critical of judicial officials.   Further, the respondent asserts that he had a duty to speak out pursuant to the Himmel decision especially when for three years a Court has deprived Mary Sykes of her liberty, her property, her civil rights and her human rights without the Court having jurisdiction.    The Sodini case 172 Ill App3d 1055 (1988)  has been cited for the proposition that if the notices required to be provided to the near (close) relatives of the alleged disabled person are not provided there is no jurisdiction vested in the Circuit Court.    Justice Connors on page 35 acknowledges the applicability of Sodini.    A copy of the Sodini decision has been spread of record in these proceedings.  See also 755 ILCS 11a – 10, 755 ILCS 11a – 11.   
4.      That with Judge Connors evidence deposition in the record, there are no disputed facts.     As the Administrator cannot produce evidence of the prior 14 day notice to the close relatives, i.e. the two siblings of Mary Sykes and Mary Sykes’ younger daughter as a matter of law there was no jurisdiction vested in the Circuit Court to adjudicate Mary Sykes incompetent, appoint a plenary guardian, or maintain two guardian ad litem.    
5.      That in its responses to the 237 Notice, the Administrator admits that it has no evidence that the Sodini requirements were ever complied with.   This admission is ‘fatal’ to this disciplinary proceeding as the record irrevocably discloses that for three years Mary Sykes’ liberty, Civil Rights, Human Rights, and property rights were taken from her in derogation of Federal and State Law.    Worse yet, the civil rights deprivation continue to this date.    It is and would be ethically challenged for respondent not to have raised a hue and cry as to this horrible travesty of justice that is currently promulgated in the Circuit Court of Cook County.      In recent years 17 Cook County Judges were sentenced to jail for corruption.
The Evidence Deposition
6.       That the evidence deposition which is attached to this supplement to the Motion for a Finding is a revelation.   In particular, while this panel, the Administrator, the respondent, and the witness are all bound to known the law, on Cross–examination the respondent inquired of Justice Connors if the procedure for appointing a plenary guardian was jurisdictional.  (See Transcript page 35.)   The witness admitted that the Sodini (statutory) procedure was jurisdictional.    The significance, of the admission is to lay to rest any argument that if the procedure was not followed the Court could act with jurisdiction.   On page 35, the witness further admitted that if the procedure was not followed the Court could not acquire jurisdiction.
7.      That on page 34 and 35, the witness affirmed the mandatory requirement the petition filed has to name the close relatives.    The record reveals that this was not done.    The two siblings of Mary Sykes were not named.
8.      That on page 42 the witness admits that the word “shall” used the statute is mandatory.    (Thus a question is raised as to whether the Sykes case should have been heard in Cook County, as at the time of the filing Mary Sykes was residing in DuPage County.)
9.      That in the Administrator’s response to the 237 notice the Administrator admits that he has no evidence of the Sodini (statutory service) on the ‘close relatives.’      Thus, the Administrator cannot prove that any ‘legal proceedings’ i.e. proceeding in which a Court had jurisdiction were proceeding for the three years that Mary Sykes was ‘held’ illegally under the ‘cover of statute’ by Justice Connors, Guardian ad litem Cynthia Farenga, Guardian Adam Stern, and the wrongfully appointed plenary guardian.     This conduct on the part of officers of the Court was and is reprehensible and per se corruption that is repugnant to the Illinois and United States Constitution and general laws.   
10.  That the Administrator is required to prove that the actions of the respondent were ethically challenged by ‘clear and convincing evidence.’     735 ILCS 110/5 is clear in condoning and encouraging the actions of the respondent, and therefore if the principle of Equal Protection of the Law is applied these disciplinary proceedings must be dismissed, and the panel must order an honest, complete, and comprehensive investigation as to how such a deplorable and disingenuous situation as has occurred in the Sykes case can have occurred under the Illinois Judicial system.
            Wherefore the respondent moves for a finding and a dismissal.
Respectfully submitted,
Kenneth Ditkowsky
Kenneth Ditkowsky
Pro Se
5940 W. Touhy Avenue, Suite 230
Niles, Illinois  60714
Ken Ditkowsky

Ken Ditkowsky is sharing and caring again! Get a copy of Justice Connors’ Deposition transcript

Dear Readers;

the link: (if you have problems with the links and cannot view, download the Google software)

See my comments below and thanks to Ken for bringing this travesty of justice to all our attention:

Justice Connors deposition–my comments

At the outset, KD had told me the agreement was for an “evidence deposition” but the introduction (and perhaps this is just bad lawyering) does not state that.  I would argue then that Justice Connors has to appear because it was waived if not asserted at the beginning of the deposition for the purposes of presenting evidence at trial.

P.10 Justice Connors states that here case load in Probate was huge (oh, gimma a break, m’lady.  Most afternoons you have nothing in that courtroom.  You work half days most of the time).

P13.  The appearance form is introduced with a letter.  KD objects because it is not clear that appearance form was ever sent with a letter to Dr. Patel.
P.14.  Ken does his job and objects on the grounds of heresay and authentication.  There is no evidence the appearance form belongs with the letter.

P.16 LB asserts that the Appearance form was sent with the letter and KD does his job and objects.  Justice Connors says in court that KD told her that he sent the letter when the record indicates otherwise.  In her haste to cause trouble for KD, when Judge Connors asks “did you send the appearance form to Dr. Patel”, KD does not answer, but nutty CF does by saying “yes he did, your honor”.  Way to go, babe.  Guess the court reporter figured out you, Ms. Farenga, were not an extension of KD’s mouth.

P.19 KD is making an objection for the record, and LB interrupts him.  Interesting.  He is allowed to object and state a reason.  If LB wants to say he need not state a reason (not advised, you can waste time getting down the wrong track and then your opponent can come up with a litany of reasons later.  Best to ask to keep it short and to the point.) LB should just say, I’d prefer if we skip reasoning and just everyone say “objection.”  That is a valid preference.  She does not say that.  Instead she argues with his grounds for the objection, which is not proper.

P.22 LB starts in with a number of emails and KD objects due to foundation, heresay, best evidence.   LB should have taken KD’s deposition first and had him pop open his yahoo emails to show they are on the server, print them out in front of the court reporter and then label them.  That’s the only true way to authenticate a public email is to find it on the server and print it out in front of a court reporter.

P.26 LB line 19, you gotta read this.  KD objects to emails on the grounds of heresay.  LB responds that they’re not being admitted for the truth of the matter asserted.  LOL.  So why is she asking questions about them?  Is she withdrawing them as a basis for her complaint against Ken?  If these are in fact the operative documents, she MUST 1) provide foundation (time, date, place); 2) authenticate or have the witness swear they came from his or her business records; 3) make sure they do not contain heresay which is defined as a statement out of court which proves the truth of the matter asserted.  She has to bring it “into court” by having CF first testify she received the email and printed it out and kept it in the ordinary course of business.  Now, technically CF can’t do that because it is copyright infringement BUT CF could keep the URL and use that and a summary in her own words.  LB can find it and print it out because she is technically a court being a hearing board or agency and courts do not infringe copyrights, far as I know.

P.28.  KD continues his standing objections on the emails based upon foundation, authentication, Best Evidence, etc.  Now at this point, an atty should think about whether to make these standing objections.  The reality is, one of the reasons you make standing objections is to primarily save time and effort. But making a lot of objections often gets your opponent off track and they forget questions and do little follow up–it’s just too much trouble.  LB is a got atty, so taking the latter tack is often a good idea.  Make her work.  Make her forget, make her want to go have a coffee break and get off by 5 pm.

P.36.  KD cross examines Justice Connors.  He gets her to admit that Sodini is jurisdictional.  However, it’s interesting that on line 8 she says “there may be exceptions.”  No, nice lady, Sodini does NOT say there may be exceptions.  They say the notice is MANDATORY and NO EXCEPTIONS and NO EXCUSES.  Duh.  The word “shall” is used.  Sodini discusses this at length.

P. 38.  KD questions MC (Justice Connors) regarding where venue is proper.  MC says it’s Cook County because Mary has property there.  Okay, this is scary, that’s not what the SCOTUS has said on residency.  It’s well known residence is presence in that county and a permanent intent to remain there, so once Mary leaves with Carolyn and Carolyn tells others Mary is not going home and she is keeping her, the temp guardianship has to be transferred to DuPage and guardianship entered there.  Duh!

But getting back to my main point on this question is that Atty Apostol is objecting!  What’s up with that?  Only ONE atty gets to question and that SAME atty is the only one to make objections. No two on one.  This isn’t hockey, you know with 1400+ ice brawls per year.

P. 40.  Hey KD, what up with this, Atty Apostol is continuing to interject.  What’s wrong with this guy?  LB is questioning and Apostol is objecting?  Come on now.

LOL bottom of page.  JMC admits sometimes in the petitions the Petitioern does not know all the close relatives.  Is she kidding?  CT did not know Mary’s sister 1 and 2?  Hah!  Mary talked to them on the phone ALL the time.  Does Justice Connors ever ask when she gets a petition if the Petitioner knows all the close relatives?  Carolyn knew them.  The Petition was deficient and fraudulent without all the close relatives (defined in the statute as adult parents, children and siblings).

P. 42+.  KD does a great job on getting JMC to admit Mary was entitled to counsel, she was entitled to a Notice of Rights, she was entitled to live testimony and clear and convincing evidence, she was entitled to a 6 person jury.  KD should have followed up with “how many times has ANY OF THOSE happened in your courtroom?”  NEVER.  I have never seen that in probate court and I have spent days and days there watching and listening.  Based upon the video tapes I am absolutely certain, that Mary, if questioned apart from Carolyn would want an independent atty, live testimony from a doctor that carefully examined her, etc.  All these rights were violated–over and over, the guardianship was railroaded.

P.46.  Ken gets out a meat cleaver and takes a whack at the jugular vein of JMC.
Now recall above, KD accuses the court of “doctor shopping.”  JMC denies this above.  But on p. 46 he nails it—on a transcript “get another doctor” when Mary’s doctor won’t say she’s incompetent.    (C.f. p. 23 JMC is asked, is there any basis for claiming you advised “doctor shopping” A: None whatsoever.  Bottom of page.)

P.47.  JMC incredulously advises on doctor shopping.  In fact, she continues to recommend it.  Way to go babe. (If you can’t get a CCP211 you like from doctor no.1 , then FIND A DOCTOR, just like when I go to CVS and can’t find my favorite nail polish, I go find what I want at Sally’s–and that’s not nail polish shopping around?)

P.50, line 14, KD asks if many Respondents are “cowed” in court or “taken aback.”  JMC replies that many Respondents are outspoken and it depends on the effects of their dementia.  Is she gonna read this?  She is clearly presuming that if a Respondent is cowed, they’re demented, and if they are outspoken, that’s another form of being demented.  Clearly she presumes dementia no matter how the Respondent replies in her courtroom. (If you go to court, be prepared to spell “world” backwards, that’s all I can say).

P.53.  Ken is asking all sorts of questions as to whether JMC recalls the problems with the POA for CT and no accounting, if she recall the problem with the lack of accounting on the safe deposit box–and it had Gloria’s name on it too, as well as numerous other issues.  JMC says she can’t recall and is getting clearly nervous and defensive.  At this point, I would have calmed the witness down and told her “it’s okay to say you don’t recall rather than speculate and get it wrong.”

Once that happens, then the witness will start freely remembering they don’t recall and then your opponent has a non witness on those issues.

You pin it down.

P. 53.  JMC admits that an accounting is appropriate procedure after a guardian is appointed and POA’s are terminated.  Good admission. Why was this not done?

P.59.  On the issue of other daughter’s visitation.  JMC waffles on whether the other daughter could visit and then she says she was told the other daughter upset her mother.  KD’s perfect, right on question–Before you “banned the other daughter”, did you hold a hearing?

Yeah, I wanna know that?  Why doesn’t she hold hearings on the ”banning visitation” issue and get feedback from both sides?

P.60.   KD gets JMC to admit Mary can get her own lawyer, then she takes it back and says JMC must appoint a lawyer for her.

There is a notice and a statute that says a Respondent can get an atty if they just ask, so what exactly is JMC’s standard for getting an attorney for someone?  Does she follow the law as written, the court’s official notices as written?  Those say the Respondent just has to ask, she just has to say she wants an atty.  That’s what Mary did in not one but two handwritten notes to the court.

But Judge Connors doesn’t like that standard (Respondent just has to ask for an attorney).  Heck no, JMC says she would appoint an attorney for a Respondent if “I truly thought the person needed an attorney.” (Line 13).  Whatever happened to the Respondent’s needs and the Respondent’s requests?  I guess that is not important to JMC.

Next, KD gets on the issue of what doctor a Respondent can utilize.

P.63.  JOC admits there is “no way” she will let “other daughter” care for Mary.  And why not?  This other daughter is not a felon, she is not under a Petition for an Order of Protection like CT.

P.67 to 68.  JMC basically admits that a summons for Mary for her home in Chicago is void if she is living in Naperville and CT was temp guardian and said Mary would not be returning, more or less.  It is wrong and Ken is right.  The Summons on Mary is defective.  No proper Summons admitted by JMC, there is no jurisdiction on that grounds either.

He is doing good with, did you hold a hearing on that issue?  Did you hold a hearing?

These are very good questions to ask JMC.

P.70.  JMC is getting a bit stubborn.  KD asks her if the 14 day Sodini notices are not served, then there is no jurisdiction.  She replies she is not there to speculate.  Oh, but my little Judgy buttercup, yes you are!  You are an expert in this field, you can educate the ARDC, Ms. Black and Mr. Apostol on these issues.  They are not experts.  The line of questioning is entirely appropriate and relevant.  I wanna know how you Judgy types in Probate get away with skirting clear laws when the FED courts on the 14th floor never do.  Jurisdiction and 5 day notices, 10 day or whatever are inviolate on that floor, and the defendants get HEARINGS on issues, not just conclusions from a court appointed, buddy system GAL.  I never hear the judges on the 14th floor saying, you can have an atty if I think you really need one in this case, just let me take care of you……  Heck no to that one.

But no matter, KD will not push it and I agree, best to just lead her thru the statute like a little week old puppy learning to walk after opening its eyes.

P.73 KD goes after the fact Judge Connors issued a restraining order to prevent the other daughter from fixing up 6014 (this is a typo in the transcript), WITH NO BOND, as required per statute.  If the other daughter was going to do $100,000 in repairs, a $50,000 bond would have been typical and mandatory in any other court, or the judge would not grant a TRO or Preliminary Injunction.  JMC skips this part.

P.75.  KD goes after JMC on the Illinois CPA or anti-SLAPP litigation which protects a person’s First Amendment rights. JMC admits she heard of it.  Good for her!  Way to go!

P.76 KD asks if he can accuse JMC of being corrupt (based upon her complete lack of following court procedures and statutes).  THIS IS GOLDEN–She has no comment on that!  LOL  (The word corruption is defined via Wikipedia as any deviation from ethical or moral ideals.  It’s not just about paying money in a case.  It can also be not following the laws as written.)

P. 81.  After a long path, KD gets JMC to admit the only way you can invalidate a court order is by following Illinois Compiled Statutes sec. 1401 and doing it within 2 years with due diligence and a meritorious defense.  I think this took several pages.  He read the transcript into the record where she said she didn’t have to do that.

P. 83 long debate between KD and JOC that “his client” (hmmm, interesting) “fought any inquiry into the ownership of funds” at every turn.  Well okay, except for the number of times the other daughter tried to explain it to the court, her numerous pleadings in the file, the times that Brodsky could and did explain it to the court.  Been there, done that.  Over and over.  Yes, except for those numerous explanations which are on the record.

P. 84.  A sister testifies in court as to a bag of coins a foot high and 6 inches wide, and JMC does not recall that testimony?  JMC can’t recall the theft of a million dollars from Mary’s estate?

P.85.  KD questions JMC on seizing property of the “other daughter”.  That there must be a citation to discover, that there must be a hearing, a two step process.  You can see at the bottom of the page a paragraph of waffling from JOC–it is clearly not an answer to the question of what the legal process was and was it adhered to in the format prescribed to by the Ill. Legislature:

Counsel, we’re In a very
18 unique situation. We’re dealing with the assets of
19 a disabled person.
20 This woman needed this money to live,
21 to provide for a caregiver. She wanted to be in her
22 own home. I would have loved to have placed her In
23 her own home and given her 24-hour care, but your
24 client wouldn’t allow it.
1 We couldn’t get to the bottom line,
2 was any of this money hers or not? If it wasn’t her
3 money, counsel, fine, it was not Mrs. Sykes’ money,
4 it was her daughter’s money.
5 That’s great. Keep your million
6 dollars. All we wanted to find out was was this part
7 of her money so we could get this money and pay for
8 this woman to live in her own home, but we could
9 never get to the bottom of it because your client
10 fought all along the way. That’s all I wanted to
11 find out, so.

This is despite the fact that it was explained by the other daughter in open court numerous times, she put it in pleadings, I believe two lawyers explained it to the court.

P.93 The piece de resistance of the entire deposition.  JMC says, well, perhaps the sisters were not notified, but they were present in court.  All that would have happened is that I would have vacated the case and we would have started all over.

What a lie!  No, you can’t.  Mary would have been free, free to move to another state, free to get the heck out of Dodge before it was too late.

The only way you get jurisdiction according to SCOTUS is by having a presence in that jurisdiction and an intent to remain there permanently.  The other daughter would have had Mary out of state so fast Mary’s head would swim and that would be the end of greedy, corrupt, over reaching jurisdiction!

And Ken, you know you led her on to voice a judicial opinion directly CONTRARY to what Sodini held, you dirty dog!  Being present in court on the day of adjudication does not give sufficient notice to the sisters and the Illinois Supremes held that Probate notice of hearing requirements must be strictly adhered to and notice is mandatory in order for the court to obtain jurisdiction.  In fact, they go into a whole monolog in Sodini on how just telling someone about the hearing is not enough, doing it less than 14 days in advance is not enough, and they make it clear that deviations from the notice requirements of 1) written notice by Petitioner, 2) of time, date and place of hearing; 3) served on close relatives, defined as adult parents, siblings and children; 4) served in person or by mail — there is NOTHING optional about any of this.  They specially said that “some exceptions” rule was overturned by the State Legislature when enacting the new Probate Act.   Judge Connors knew that and chose to ignore and confuse the ARDC with the change in the law that happened years before.  Disgusting.  Utterly disgusting.  She knows these laws.  She CHOOSES not to follow them and then says “oh, well.”

Other than that, excellent job at upholding all our civil rights and our right to a hearing, our right to live witnesses the other sisters could have cross examined, etc.


corruption is spiritual or moral impurity or deviation from an ideal.

From Gloria–Great comments on the trial of Ken Ditkowsky for helping Seniors, proposed legislation, etc.

Sent: Sep 3, 2012 7:25 AM
Dear Tom,

I am the youngest daughter of Mary G. Sykes: with all due respect we are legislated out of our protection zones and, unlike Micky Rooney or other celebrities who have been defined as having been “abused” and ” financially exploited” and placed into conservatorships and guardianships for protections from the perpetrators, my Mother and simply too many other innocents who are elderly and or disabled fall quietly into the grasp of the politically elite’s business as usual scam for financial gain! It’s been over 18 months since I was last able to speak to and or associate with my mother and the perpetrators have been able to target me in retaliation to shut me up and in doing so have rendered me a pauper and homeless: the game is one that is recognized in this damned reality of court sanctioned guardianships. Meanwhile where is my mother? Where is her voice? How does she appeal and escape the horrors of the guardianship she was forced into upon her objections as she intelligently stood before the court — unknowingly and without service of notice and or legal advocate, under the guise that her petition for an order of protection again her eldest daughter Carolyn Toerpe was to be heard and Toerpe would be stopped from taking control of her finances and person! Instead the court appointed Toerpe her plenary guardian! How does this happen?  It happened because the court and its appointed officers agreed to the guardianship because they knew that my mother’s estate was worth over a million dollars and that my estate too worth over a million dollars could and would soon be theirs for their own financial gains: but my mother fought back and did digital recordings and hand wrote notes and she directed me to find and retain attorney Kenneth Ditkowsky who, I did find and did retain to help me and friends and family get to the truth and save my mother’s life and then without notice or any rational Kenneth Ditkowsky too is threatened and sanctioned by the same court who, as my mothers superior guardian, needed to silence my mother and ultimately Ken and all people sho sought justice!  Sufficient perscription drugs and unethical medical doctors easily and without exams then step in and sign compency reports and there’s nothing more to say or do: the elderly and disabled are doomed to a hell no human being should experience: it appears that my mothers only way out is death itself and that Tom is why legislation is not the answer but the problem!

I suggest you fly I to Chicago for the ARDC hearings in September 6 and 7 and then and only then you decide …. What I find very interesting is that all these so called advocacy groups to stop guardianship abuse have been silent in the Ditkowsky case and so far none of then have responded to the invitation to witness first hand the power and control of America’s political elite of all people should step up and stand up to them and say “No you cant do this to Mary G Sykes, Gary Harvy, Erna,  the loved ones  of Jane, Annie, Lucinda, Brian, Lu, Rudy, Holly, Batbara, Holly et al or to Tim, Danny, Gail, et alia! Words are meaningless and wasted paper: our actions however do speak!  I invite you to participate in the witch hunts of guardianship abuses on the 6 and 7th September at the ARDC in Chicago and challenge you and others who say they want to stop the abuses — your presence is action and a sign to the political elite that we will not stop until we save the elderly and disabled from the horrors and whores of justice and our American Courts and the court appointed guardians whose intentions to exploit, abuse and ultimately murder are sanctioned by those who are paid by our tax dollars to protect!

Thank you for your time and consideration. I hope to meet you in Chicago next week! I’ll be one one carrying the sign outside the ARDC that says, Please Help Bring My Mother Home! And so I ask, Please help save my mothers life and In doing so you help save the lives of millions,

healthy regards,

From J. Ditkowsky–an important observation–Stern writes all the orders!

From: “jdit
Sent: Monday, September 3, 2012 7:47 AM
Subject: ps: reminder of what the previous email is about!

If the States Attorney of Cook County were to do her job, she would investigate this Sykes case and they would find:
1) there was and is no jurisdiction for a dollar of Mary’s money to be spent.   Carolyn’s appointment as plenary guardian is void!
2) the void orders promulgated by Stern, Farenga et al are all aiding and abetting the theft of Mary’s property (and also Gloria’s)   They GALs are accessories.    They are presumed to know the law and in particular the statute under which they were appointed.
3) Felony theft has occurred!
4) the Criminal Divison of the Circuit Court of Cook County is still functioning.
Have you noticed that Stern writes all the orders!
Ken Ditkowsky
(edited for typos only)
Plus, I would love to know why AS writes all the orders and why CF hasn’t been showing up.
Will their excuse be CF reads the blog, but AS doesn’t so he writes orders and appears in court.  We know CF reads the blog because she seems to be the one squaking about a post or something other from the blog she doesn’t like.
So, in the end, will AS be the “innocent spouse”? (This is a dumb IRS rule, btw, that won’t work for an atty, because an atty is presumed to know the law)

Before the Trial of Ken Ditkowsky, he should call on the Miscreants to step forward…

and admit that on December 7, 2009, the Sykes probate (pirate) court lost all its jurisdiction.  This will include Guardian ad Lietem Adam Stern, Cynthia Farenga, Peter Schmeidel, Harvey Waller, Deborah Jo Soehlig and Amanda Byrens.

THEY ALL KNOW THAT THE COURT HAS BEEN ACTING WITHOUT JURISDICTION SINCE DECEMBER 7, 2012 when Carolyn Toerpe failed to serve any notice of the December 7, 2009 hearing upon the adult sisters and other daughter of Mary.

No dispute.  All on the record and all well established fact.  The declarations are published here.  There is no filing of the notice together with a timely Certificate of Service.
No matter what Judge Stuart says, the issue is clear and just–THE CASE MUST BE DISMISSED NON-SUITED and Mary allowed to return freely to her home and her other daughter who care for her lovingly for 10 years!

PS–Ken, if they are not in court at the start of the hearing, ask the Hearing Panel to get them on the phone.  Tell their receptionist just who is calling them to ask about jurisdiction in the case that is starting against you.

Now for my comments on Ken’s emails

If you are going to steal, what difference does it make if you have a court without jurisdiction?The miscreants should be called upon to step forward to Judge Stuart and do the right thing and admit the court lost jurisdiction on December 7th, 2009 before you put on evidence during your hearing that was the case and it gets in a transcript someplace.  they should be also called upon to admit that the ARDC complaint was only based upon your finding out their “crimes” and my posting it.

so far the Probate court (and I was thinking Pirate court when Mary’s other daughter made that typo!  –that was assuredly an LOL/Freudian slip– makes all the family coming forward to report abuse and theft “shush” up so it never gets on a transcript.  the court reporters only record the judge and miscreant attys then.

none if it then is on the record.  Not only do the miscreants use the Prob/pirate court to clean the transcript record, they then cleanse the court file, an a list of the 80% missing files in the Probate court is also a crucial issue in your trial and argument, so don’t miss that one.  Perhaps you should ask your tribunal to kindly step across the street and ask Judge Stuart to show them the file cart that has about 80% of the file missing.  No orders are left from 2009.  13 large heavy volumes of appellate record.  Professional cleansing.  And don’t let them blame the other daughter or the other Sykes family–we’re putting everything we have on the internet and they can just pop open a laptop and see that too!

—–Original Message—–
From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Sep 2, 2012 9:10 AM

A Court speaks only through its written orders, thus, if there is no written order your sister acted ultra vires.
However, if there is no jurisdiction even the written orders are void.
Now tie in the Jerman case and apply the presumption that “lawyers and Judges are presumed to know the law” The GALs, Carolyn’s lawyer and the Judge all know that the order is void and when they act upon it they act illegally under color of statute.   The de facto officers of the Court act in violation of 42 USCA 1983.    Let us go one step further.   The venue section of the statute also uses the word ‘shall.’   That means the venue is mandatory and In re: Sykes 09 P _____ is even in the wrong County!
Ken Ditkowsky
From: the other daughter, summary
Missing assets:
1) the Beneficial annuity now worth about $1000,  maybe more
2) GE stock worth quite a lot– I was also a beneficiary.
3) Toerpe had mothers name removed off of the pension checks and
4)Toerpe emptied all if the accounts at the Pullman Bank (Pullman is now US Bank in Norwood Park) and so mother no longer has any accounts in her name.
5) Two if the three accounts I know of at Pullman bank had my name listed as joint owner was also removed. The three accounts had at least $20,000 at the time Toerpe kidnapped mother. Toerpe wrote mom only had six thousand (in an inventory?).
The crimes are too great to even care about any more because Attorney Schmiedel teaches how to determine financial exploitation to other attorneys: obviously he knows how to cover up and churn assets with a holy veil of the permission of the Prirate (sp) court.
From Me:  I laughed when I saw the misspelling of Probate court and she’s right, tho it might be a freudian slip, the miscreants are operating in nothing but a Pirate Court!
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 1, 2012, at 11:45 PM, wrote:

In re McCormack’s Estate, 50 NYS 2d 274 – 1944

How this document has been cited

Although a court-ordered withdrawal of funds from the Totten trust to be used for the depositor’s support amounts to a revocation to that extent, a committee or guardian cannot exercise the depositor’s right to revoke
– in Successor Trustees of Tentative Trusts: Trust Law Phantoms and one similar citation
Without a court order, the committee was without authority to terminate the trust by withdrawal of the entire fund on deposit with the bank
– in Gorfinkel v. FIRST NAT’L BANK IN YONKERS, 1963 and one similar citation
Should the depositor become incompetent, may his guardian reach the funds and if so, for what purpose?
– in Trusts
The above quoted statement, as well as the one by Bogert, apparently has its genesis in a few early New York cases.
– in Community Property-Management of Special Community of Incapacitated Spouse
—holding committee, upon appointment, has neither the power nor duty to close a Totten trust account under the guise of collecting the incompetent’s assets, may not change the registration by restoring it to the ward’s sole name, nor withdraw the funds and place them in a new account in the committee’s name as fiduciary
– in Successor Trustees of Tentative Trusts: Trust Law Phantoms
This case was treated as a tentative trust even though there was a trust agreement In the signature card of Hlbernla Savings and Loan Society which held the account.
– in Legal bulletin

Emails are are an assurance of nothing!

Dear Readers;

As you are aware, the vast majority of what the ARDC is complaining about KD involves the use of  emails CF didn’t like.  The only problem with emails is that either all parties stipulate to them at the onset of a trial, or you are left with evidential problems that are near insolvable.

Unlike a document that can be examined for type, font and signature, an email comes from and only exists truly in cyberspace.  For the best evidence of emails, the examining atty should ask the witness to pop open his or her laptop and show how that email still exists intact on a public server such as hotmail, yahoo, msn, or the popular favorite today, gmail.

For that reason, I have at my firm a “denisonlaw” separate server that tracks all incoming and outgoing mail.  Despite the fact that unlike my paid for mail box at earthlink, it is hopelessly clogged with spam, I can get an original of everything in or out of my firm for years and years.  It is on a public server (I forget the name of the company), and everything in or out may be comfirmed. This is esp. easy since I always send out via that server.

Ken has Yahoo, I believe so it should be easy to prove with a simple search in court.

Now the easier thing to do would have the ARDC stipulate and print out exactly what they will use.  Also, (based upon my experience in Federal Court and Law Division trials of Cook County Circuit Court), the attorneys should stipulate before hand all evidence used.

This entire process at the ARDC seems quite antiquated to me.


On of the things that KD will be using to accomplish the problem of unauthentic or adulterated emails will need to be via the “best evidence” rule which does not mean is this or that the best evidence of something, but whether a party brought the original.

So where is that original?  It exists on a public server and KD, I believe should be able to step out in the hall with each email and be shown it on the PUBLIC SERVER the party propounding it wishes to use.  Ken should not have to do that, and he should be prepared with a legal memo and technical memo (I’ll vouch for it, with my many years writing software patents and background in Fortran IV and C++ program — and yes, I did get A’s) but emails are a total disaster in courtrooms such as the Daley Center that have no WiFi access and are still resting on printed documents.  Justice simply cannot be accomplished with such a system in today’s email based world.

The best evidence rule is a common law rule of evidence which can be traced back at least as far as the 18th century. In Omychund v Barker (1745) 1 Atk, 21, 49; 26 ER 15, 33, Lord Harwicke stated that no evidence was admissible unless it was “the best that the nature of the case will allow”. The publication ten years later of Gilbert’s enormously influential Law of Evidence,[1] a posthumous work by Sir Jeffrey Gilbert, Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer, established the primacy of the best evidence rule, which Gilbert regarded as central to the concept of evidence. The general rule is that secondary evidence, such as a copy or facsimile, will be not admissible if an original document exists, and is not unavailable due to destruction or other circumstances indicating unavailability.

The best evidence rule is also thought to be the basis for the rule precluding the admissibility of hearsay evidence, although the two rules are now quite distinct.

Now that you know about emails and public servers and the “best evidence” of presenting a printed out email in court, see Ken’s Comments below:

From: JoAnne M Denison <>
To: kenneth ditkowsky <>
Sent: Saturday, September 1, 2012 11:18 PM
Subject: Re: Saturday on the American Reconstruction Project

I would strongly object to any email introduced unless and until someone could pop open a laptop and show how the original still exists on a public server.

otherwise anything printed out or popped down is subject to simple QED tampering.

—–Original Message—–
From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Sep 1, 2012 9:39 PM
To: “”
Subject: Re: Saturday on the American Reconstruction Project

I did not suggest that this gal was going to or should run for the U S House of Representatives  –  however, the word of warning is noted.
I’ve noted that the ARDC has taken some of my e-mails out of context.   This is the problem with e-mails.   In addition there is no privacy.    I addressed this e-mail to Gloria even though it was intended for someone else and Gloria had nothing to do with any statement made therein.    This masks who I actually sent the response.    Technology in the hands of an amateur such as yours truly is like putting a loaded gun in the hands of a child.   The e-mail that was allegedly sent to me which I am responding to can also be altered.  The author could have written the Martin Luther King assassination, and referred to *****.    The words CIA could have been KGB or they may or may not have been in the original.
With the volume of e-mails that have been sent back and forth it is impossible for a litigant to know if the words and phrases that are repeated in the e-mails are accurate.   For that reason, on September 6/7 any e-mails that are tendered as evidence have to have a strong foundation and most importantly the ‘best evidence’ is the original e-mail.   Please do not allow me to forget the foregoing.  Thank you
Ken Ditkowsky