From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Oct 12, 2012 9:20 AM
To: Michigan Advocacy Project
Cc: Gloria Jean Sykes
Subject: Re: Karbin v Karbin 2012 Il 112815
The Abuses that have occurred in connection with these guardianship cases is outrageous and continues without ‘letup.’ The potential for abuse by the Karbin decision is monumental; however, the need for honest guardians to have the tools to act in the interests of their wards is also very great. To be very candid, it is my opinion that certain guardians would curl my hair if they had the ability to decide if a particular was in need of a ‘haircut!’ There other guardians who I would trust with great authority. In the past years dealing with Stern, Farenga, and Schmiedel has been an eye-opener. My respect for the 2nd oldest profession at this point in time is at a nadir.
The tendency is to judge a profession by is lowest common denominator. This is human nature and each of us suffers from the malady. Worse yet the minute we let up our guard, up pops a Stern, Farenga, Schmiedel, et al. When I won in the Appellate Court the vacation and reversal (based upon jurisdictional grounds) the sanction award, realizing that I am ‘long in the tooth’ I offered Stern, and Farenga a pass on the Civil Rights lawsuit that I intended to file. The condition was that they ‘do their jobs.’ I did not tell them how to do the jobs, all I wanted them to do was to report to the Court honestly and appropriately the claim of the non-inventory of large number of gold coins (Au) and the December emergency room incident in which Mary Sykes had in a very short time by the admitted neglect of the plenary guardian lost 10% of her body weight. This offer was determined by the Mr. Larkin of the ARDC to be intimidation and is part of the ARDC complaint against me. When this and a letter to the United States Attorney General are considered unethical by the State of Illinois ARDC – it is very hard to have any faith in the 2nd oldest profession.
From: Michigan Advocacy Project <firstname.lastname@example.org>
[MAP relates a story of a black sheep daughter requesting a divorce for her parent who was under a guardianship so she could inherit. I think that’s pretty creepy, but apparently the court agreed to it eventually. Don’t know the case name or cite, it was not passed on.]
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 5:28 PM, kenneth ditkowsky <email@example.com> wrote:
Depending on your point of view and your confidence in the Judicial process the Illinois Supreme Court handed down a major decision on October 6, 2012.
The Supreme Court over-ruled the case of In re: the Marriage of Drews 115 Ill 2d 201 (1986) and provided that a ‘guardian’ can now petition the Probate Court to obtain permission to file a divorce action. The Court took this step so as to make certain that an incompetent was not denied his/her privileges and immunities. This right was not ‘willy nilly’ granted to a guardian. The Court provided that the guardian must make application pursuant to section 11a -17 and prove the this is the best interest for the disabled person by ‘clear and convincing evidence.’
If we examine the Sykes case and the application of the standard ‘clear and convincing evidence’ I do not believe any one of us feels ‘warm and fuzzy.’ This is a case that is a must read!