Indeed, of course publish it. As these laws have been in effect for more than a decade how sitting Judges are unaware of them. This is the revelation garnered from Judge Connors’ deposition and the fact that Judge after Judge refuses to visit the jurisdiction situation in the Sykes case. GJS has raised the issue until she is ‘blue in the face’ and Farenga, Stern, and Schmiedel – knowing that the attached article relies upon the Estate of Steinfeld 158 Ill2d 1 and Sodini 172 Ill App 2d 530 [falsely] represented that the issue has been raised and determined against Sykes. The fact that no Court order confirms this fact appears to be irrelevant. [the fact that all 2009 orders have been professionally “cleansed” from the files also supports the concept that the ARDC is with knowledge and direction looking the other way]
From: JoAnne M Denison <jdenison@surfree.com>
To: kenneth ditkowsky <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 7:22 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: WestlawNext – § 282:1. Procedures preliminary to the hearingListed in Westlaw sec 282:1 is the following case cite:
The requirement that notice be given to relatives of the allegedly disabled person, as required by § 11a-10(f) is jurisdictional and failure to give such notice will require that the appointment be vacated. Matter of Sodini, 172 Ill. App. 3d 1055, 123 Ill. Dec. 67, 527 N.E.2d 530 (4th Dist. 1988).
very good, okay to publish? if the court had no jursidiction in Sykes and you and I are screaming about it, they have no jurisdiction to discipline us for this travesty either.not my fault or yours.
but the ARDC should have a Himmel duty to report itself.
Just who do we report the ARDC to? Lisa Madigan? Is she in on this? the Illinois Supreme Court? Have they also been directed to look the other way? Where does this all end? I guess I still have more questions–many more questions–than answers as this whole saga of greed, evil and corruption drags on and one and on. It’s now nearly 3 years since I tried to intervene in the probate matter and was subject to a “bogus” disqualification claim merely because I notarized one document for Mary. The case was then railroaded to closure with 90% of the Sykes family having no say, claiming Carolyn was estranged and not trustworthy and yet appointed as Plenary Guardian.joanne
—–Original Message—– From: kenneth ditkowsky Sent: Dec 17, 2012 4:49 PM To: JoAnne M Denison , probate sharks , NASGA , Tim Lahrman NASGA , Michigan Advocacy Project , states attorney , Cook County Sheriff , “Edward C. Carter” , DiAnn Matson , JoAnne M Denison , NASGA , probate sharks , matt senator kirk Subject: Fw: WestlawNext – § 282:1. Procedures preliminary to the hearingTake a look at this attachment. It appears that even the ‘horn’ books are clear that the Sodini notices are jurisdictional. I wonder how this fact is even an issue? I would suggest that Judge Connor’s deposition be examined to ascertain how she reasons that he she had jurisdiction to enter any orders in the Sykes case. As I recall the deposition which I believe JoAnne put on her ‘blog’ the Judge says that she believes that she has discretion. As I read Sodini et al there is no discretion – no service no jurisdiction. Being very blunt a grave injustice has occurred herein to both Mary Sykes and Gloria Sykes. Three plus years have gone under the dam! (maybe it should be spelled damn) It is time for law enforcement to enforce the law. The Mary Sykes case has not occurred in a vacuum. Stern/Farenga/Schmiedel and the Circuit Court Judges who have entered orders herein must have had the very same knowledge that appears in the textbooks. Thus, they knew or should have known that they had no jurisdiction when Mary Sykes was taken from her family, placed in Carolyn Troeple’s dwelling in Naperville, denied her liberty, isolated from her family, had her assets taken from her (including about a million dollars in Au coins), etc. the Judges and attorneys should have known there was no jurisdiction when they subject Gloria Sykes to the hearings that appear in the transcripts of the Sykes case and certainly they knew or should have known the lack of jurisdiction as the orders interfered with Gloria Sykes liberty and property. Similarly, the Illinois ARDC must have known when they charged me (and as they are charging JoAnne) that we are protesting behavior that is occurring under color of statute that is clearly without jurisdiction. An investigation of this travesty must be had immediately. It also must cease and desist. It is time now for JUSTICE. Justice for Mary Sykes/Gloria Sykes. The ‘cover-up’ must cease as it is a cancer on the justice system and the faith that the public has in the Courts. Ken Ditkowsky www.ditkowskylawoffice.com
MaryGSykes.com 