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

JoAnne

 

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
 
ILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATION
AND
DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION
 
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:
Background
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
847-600-3421
 
 
 
Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s