Seen on a T shirt for the holidays “I read the Constitution, it has great articles!”
Subject: Re: Fw: Fw: Fw: [NASGAmembers] [New post] From Lisa Belanger in Mass. Her struggle to protect her father
In the Sykes case, Ms. Farenga, Mr. Stern, and the plenary guardian have not put in for any fees. It is now three years! Adam Stern ‘for free’ spend dozens of hours prosecuting a Rule 137 motion against me knowing that the Probate Court had no jurisdiction and that any order that he could hoodwink a judge into entering would be reversed on Appeal. Cynthia Farenga has spent hundreds of hours examining the “probate shark, Nasga, and your (marygsykes.com) blogs so that she could supply with Ms. Black with writings that depict the fact that you and I have been calling for an investigation of the terrible violations of civil and human rights that Mary Sykes has suffered. Indeed, even Peter Schmiedel has contributed to fiasco. Each of the aforesaid attorneys have spend hundreds of uncompensated hours so keep the ‘ball in the air’ so that a Probate Court Judge was not directly confronted with either having to refer the 42 USCA 1983 violation to the United States Attorney and/or the States Attorney of Cook County or over-rule the Appellate Court decision in Sodini. These attorneys have not presented any substantial fee petitions for all their services to the Estate in protecting it from having to address the fact that Gloria Sykes protestations have merit and that a million dollars in gold coins was never inventoried!* Thus, if we use precedent the attorney acting for $5 dollars an hour my be getting too much! Farenga/Stern/Schmiedel are doing it for nearly free!
I sent you by a separate cover a short essay
What happened to the Bill of Rights?
Title XI a of the Probate Court is a comprehensive legislative plan for the protection of the liberty, property, civil rights, and human rights of a person who is allegedly disabled. The First Ten Amendments of the Constitution are the ‘core’ of Americana. The Illinois Constitution of 1970 is a State reiteration of commitment of the State of Illinois to the Bill of Rights and 735 ILCS 110 et seq. is a more recent affirmation.
The Probate Court is a Court of limited jurisdiction. It is not intended to be a ‘super court!’ Thus, 755 ILCS 5/11a – 1 et seq. grants the jurisdiction to the Probate Court to address limited issues, and the legislature by using the word “shall” mandates the maximum protection for the alleged incompetent. Section 11a -3 mandates venue. Section 8 determines what must be in the petition. Section 10,11 (Jurisdiction) mandates jurisdictional criterion. Section 17,18 mandate the procedure and limitations on the guardians and their activities. The protection of the liberty rights of the alleged incompetent is the clear focus of the Legislation.
Unlike the mortgage foreclosure situation and the appointment of a receiver, the Rules are strict and unbending. Discretion that affects the Liberty right of an alleged incompetent is severely limited by due process requirement (proper notice and hearing). The hearing process is intended to be procrustean so that a ‘ward’ is not ‘willy/nilly deprived of the valuable liberty right. Thus, after the petitioner seeking to declare a person disabled or incompetent proves the fact by clear and convincing evidence the incompetency and the degree thereof, the guardian is limited to performing only the actions that the disabled person would have performed, and if there is question or something usual the guardian must seek a hearing on necessity (section 18). The generous use of the word “shall” is antagonist to what has been reported to have occurred in the Sykes, Gore, Wyman, Tyler and many other cases.
The Evidence Deposition of Justice M. Connors taken in my Illinois ARDC proceeding demonstrates the paradox that is creating a scandal that rivals Greylord and the fact that currently two Illinois Governors are tenants of the United States Department of Prisons. The Illinois Appellate Court and the Illinois Supreme Court have both acknowledged that 755 ILCS 5/11a -3 et seq. Is intended to protect the Liberty, Property, Civil and Human Rights. The protection is to place a simple ‘due process’ criterion upon the imposition of a guardianship on an alleged incompetent. Section 10 and Section 11 make it clear that Notice must be served on the close (near) relatives of the alleged incompetent. (See In re: Sodini 172 ILLApp3d 1055)
The GAO report to Congress (Sept 2010) discloses that Illinois is not alone in what appears to be a systemic effort to deny seniors their liberty, property, civil and human rights. That fact many of the political community have been successful in perverting the aforesaid liberty, property, civil and human rights of the Mary Sykes of this world is not an excuse for what appears to be wholesale deprivation of liberty, property, human and civil rights of seniors. It does not exculpate law enforcement and the media for turning their heads to avoid observing the deterioration of the Rule of Law. It certainly does not obviate the duty of the Judges to understand and honor the decisions of the Appellate Courts, and not act where jurisdiction is not obtained. Indeed, as a lay citizen does not have the excuse of not knowing the law, certainly a Judge (who is paid over a $100,000 a year) has even less excuse in not knowing and/or following the law. (Compare the Sodini case with Judge Connor’s evidence deposition!).
Now to the prime question – what happened to the Bill of Rights! The question is answered when you read Judge Connor’s deposition testimony. The question is answered when you read the Sykes transcripts for August 2009 and August 2010. The question is answered when you read sanction motion written by Adam Stern seeking to sanction me and is further answered in his and Cynthia Farenga’s ARDC complaints concerning my seeking to investigate the Sykes case and/or the ARDC complaints against me and Attorney Denison making appeals to law enforcement to investigate the Sykes case and in particular:
1) the failure of Carolyn Toerpe (as petitioner) to name Mary Sykes’ siblings in the petition to declare Mary Sykes incompetent
2) the failure of Carolyn Toerpe to disclose in her petition her ‘power of attorney’ granting her dominion over Mary Sykes assets.
3) The failure of the Court to hold a hearing on the sworn petition of Mary Sykes for a protective order barring Carolyn Toerpe’s alleged misconduct toward her.
4) The failure of the Court to require Carolyn Toerpe to comply with the Section 10 (Sodini) notice requirements. And in particular, the failure of Stern, Farenga et al (and the Court) to recognize that the Appellate Court and the Supreme Court of Illinois have both pointed out that without the compliance with the Sodini notices the Court lacked jurisdiction.
5) The Court acting without jurisdiction. And in particular, the Court freezing Gloria Sykes’ assets, allowing the Isolation of Mary Sykes, the seizure and non-inventory of about a million dollars of gold coins etc.
6) The refusal of the Court to address the lack of jurisdiction. Etc.
The Bill of Rights and in particular the First Amendment is absolutely clear in prohibiting any government censorship of citizens including lawyers. The Alvarez case is the Supreme Court of the United States’ statement on the subject. The foregoing not withstanding the freezing of Gloria Sykes’ assets by an Illinois Court in Indiana and the prosecution of objecting lawyers (including JoAnn Denison and yours truly) are oxymoronic.
Now back to the question! We are losing our Bill of Rights because each of us is sitting back and allowing the political elite, law enforcement and the press to allow the guardians in the Sykes case deny Mary Sykes due process and equal protection of the law. We – you and me – allowed a State Judge to ignore the notice requirements necessary to vest her with jurisdiction and enter orders that she knew or should have known were unauthorized.
Yes, we objected and wrote letters, e-mails, and protested. The Judge however was retained in the last election – so we failed! Indeed, by our ineffectiveness and by our failure to raise a ‘hue and cry’ we are allowing Mary Sykes and those persons similarly situated to be denied their First Amendment Rights and in particular their liberty, property, human and civil rights. Every day that Mary Sykes and those persons similarly situated are in bondage or our help hostage is a day that you and I are losing our First Amendment Rights and hundreds (if not thousands) of Mary Sykes’ are ‘second class citizens’ who have been and are being denied their ‘liberty, their property, their civil rights, and their human rights.’
Mary Sykes and those who are similarly situated are entitled as citizens of the United States of America to an honest, complete and comprehensive investigation of the deprivation of their liberty, their property, civil and human rights that they are subjected to right now! As citizens they are entitled to law enforcement doing its job and prosecuting those persons who act under color of law to deprive Mary Sykes and those persons similarly situated of their LIBERTY, PROPERTY, CIVIL, RIGHTS & HUMAN RIGHTS. The State of Illinois and the United States of America in addition to doing the right thing has a pecuniary interest – it only stands to reason that if the guardian has not filed an inventory disclosing the almost a million dollars in Gold coins, she has not paid her Federal Income Tax on the coins.