Dear Readers:
As you know, KDD recently received his adverse decision from the “the Tribunal” of the ARDC and while I don’t have a copy yet, it would appear that they have disciplined him for 1) attempting to investigate a case–Sykes, which was and continues to run without jurisdiction. Running without jurisdiction is a clear violation of constitutional rights and a serious matter than no atty should engage in or cover up–the ARDC says Ken and I are lying about this, but my appellate brief is up at the Court of Appeals right now; 2) asking judicial officials, our congressional representatives and law enforcement to investigate this violation of constitutional rights–a clear pattern in probate (Sykes, Wyman, Bedin, etc.)–is also an ethical violation.
This is despite the fact a poll on this website is overwhelmningly in favor of reporting corruption to the authorities by attorneys. This is all in direct derrogation to the Himmel case where attorneys were told by the Ill. Sup. Ct to report corruption to the ARDC and in fact it is a mandate.
This is Ken’s response to that decision:
Illinois by its legislative enactment in 755 ILCS 5/11a – 1 et seq. has enacted a comprehensive program for protecting the liberty and property interests of senior citizens such as Mary Sykes. The respondent as an attorney not only has a duty to respect the legislative mandates but the morale and Constitutional considerations that are pro-actively required. The panel in making its findings totally ignores the criterion enunciated by the Supreme Court of Illinois, to wit:
Subject matter jurisdiction is the power of the court to hear and determine the particular matter presented to it. (Faris v. Faris (1966), 35 Ill.2d 305, 309, 220 N.E.2d 210.) Jurisdiction to hear and adjudicate disability and guardianship matters is expressly conferred upon the circuit court by **807 ***642 section 11a–3 of the Act. That section states, in pertinent part:
“Adjudication of disability—Power to appoint guardian. (a) upon the filing of a petition by a reputable person or by the alleged disabled person himself or on its own motion, the court may adjudge a person to be a disabled person and may appoint [a guardian of his person, estate or both].” Ill.Rev.Stat.1989, ch. 110½, par. 11a–3.
*13 67 The court acquires jurisdiction over the allegedly disabled person by personal service upon him of a copy of the petition and summons not less than 14 days before the hearing. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1989, ch. 110½, par. 11a–10(e); see McCormick v. Blaine (1931), 345 Ill. 461, 178 N.E. 195.) It is also a jurisdictional requirement that the petitioner give notice of the time and place of the hearing by mail or in person to the nearest living relatives of the allegedly disabled person not less than 14 days before the hearing. Ill.Rev.Stat.1989, ch. 110½, par. 11a–10(f); see In re Guardianship of Sodini (1988), 172 Ill.App.3d 1055, 123 Ill.Dec. 67, 527 N.E.2d 530. In re Estate of Steinfeld, 158 Ill. 2d 1, 12-13, 630 N.E.2d 801, 806-07 (1994)
The record is devoid of one scintilla of proof that at any time was the required 14 day notice given to the nearest relatives of Mary Sykes. In point of fact Judge Connor’s evidence deposition clearly indicates the lack of such a requirement in her Court[1].
The Administrator is acknowledged by the hearing panel to have a severe burden of proof, i.e. clear and convincing evidence. It is disingenuous for any entity supported by taxpayer dollars to except that a lawyer be silent concerning the most corrupt act that a Court can engage in, to wit: act without jurisdiction in regard to matters in which a citizen (especially a senior citizen) is deprived of her liberty and property rights.
The record in the Sykes, the first four volumes of which are now on the internet, reveals that a no time were the nearest relatives of Mary Sykes provided the 14 days’ notice that was required for the Circuit Court to obtain jurisdiction and at no time were the protections to which Mary Sykes entitled by 755 ILCS 5/11a – 1 et seq. provided to her. On page 18 the hearing panel admitted:
“Mary’s sisters were not named in the petition or given formal notice of the petition.”
The foregoing admission is a fatal admission that not only renders the decision herein inappropriate but suggests wrongdoing on the part of the panel. The Judicial System must respect its own rules and regulations and attorneys are bound to call attention to pejorative events such as Courts acting without jurisdiction. The criterion was set out by the Supreme Court to wit:
It is also a jurisdictional requirement that the petitioner give notice of the time and place of the hearing by mail or in person to the nearest living relatives of the allegedly disabled person not less than 14 days before the hearing. Ill.Rev.Stat.1989, ch. 110½, par. 11a–10(f); see In re Guardianship of Sodini (1988), 172 Ill.App.3d 1055, 123 Ill.Dec. 67, 527 N.E.2d 530. In re Estate of Steinfeld, 158 Ill. 2d 1, 12-13, 630 N.E.2d 801, 806-07 (1994)
Discussion
The mission of the ARDC is recited as follows:
“The mission of the ARDC is to promote and protect the integrity of the legal profession, at the direction of the Supreme Court, through attorney registration, education, investigation, prosecution and remedial action. As an administrative agency of the Supreme Court of Illinois, the ARDC assists the Court in regulating the legal profession through attorney registration, education, investigation, prosecution and remedial action.
Through our annual registration process, we compile a list of lawyers authorized to practice law. We provide ready access to that list so that the public, the profession and courts may access lawyers’ credentials and contact information.
We educate lawyers through seminars and publications to help them serve their clients effectively and professionally within the bounds of the rules of conduct adopted by the Court. We provide guidance to lawyers and to the public on ethics issues through our confidential Ethics Inquiry telephone service.
The ARDC handles discipline matters fairly and promptly, balancing the rights of the lawyers involved and the protection of the public, the courts and the legal profession. Grievances are investigated confidentially. Disciplinary prosecutions are adjudicated publicly and result in recommendations to the Court for disposition. Our boards consist of independent, diverse groups of volunteer lawyers and non-lawyers who make recommendations in disciplinary matters.
We advocate for restitution and other remedial action in disciplinary matters. We seek to provide reimbursements through our Client Protection Program to those whose funds have been taken dishonestly by Illinois lawyers who have been disciplined.
The proceedings herein were patently unfair and in appropriate.
1) The respondent was entitled to adjudication as to whether or not the complaint herein met the pleading standards.
a. It is axiomatic that a respondent in such a proceeding as this is entitled to have specific allegation made as to what, if any, of the facts are that are or were in violation of some ethical criterion. No matter how the facts and pleadings are tortured the letter to Dr. Patel does not in words and phrases make any statement that is untrue or in any way states to him anything that is untrue. In fact the letter is clear in pointing out that respondent is conducting an investigation. The Rules of Court, and in particular FRCP 11 and Rule 137 both point out that the Court expects an attorney to attempt to make certain that his/her claim is not frivolous. There was no evidence by the Administrator. Only the Administrator and the panel draw the conclusion. that Dr. Patel or anyone else was misled by the letter. As the Standard is ‘clear and convincing evidence any adverse finding as to Count 1 has to be reversed.
b. Count 2 suggests that the plaintiff does not have right to complain concerning:
i. The Court lacked jurisdiction The affidavit of Gloria Sykes and Scott Evans were placed of record. Subsequently, the ARDC received affidavits of the two siblings of Mary Sykes denying that they had not been served with notice.
ii. Mary Sykes was being abused and her liberty was denied her. The affidavit of Mr. Scott Evans and the record in the Circuit Court of Cook County are clear in pointing out Mary Sykes requested of Gloria Sykes that she find me to represent her and Farenga, Stern, Schmiedel and Troepe had kept Mary isolated from her younger daughter and two siblings. (Isolation of a senior citizen is abuse. If the ARDC had not shopped the e-mails they would have noted that the discussions which they find objectionable connote that Ms. Bakken pointed out to Farenga that Ms. Troepe had indeed neglected Mary Sykes (and admitted the same)[3] and as a result Mary lost 10% of her body weight.
iii. Mary Sykes safety deposit box was entered by the plenary guardian and a large sum of money (over a million dollars in gold coins) was removed. The panel points out that Ms. Farenga testified that neither she nor Adam Stern was present when the ‘gold coins’ were removed from the safety deposit box[4]. It is respectfully suggested that the in a fair proceeding the Administrator has to detail the facts upon which the claim is based. In particular – what facts connote that the averment made was not truthful.
2) The Administrator was not required to meet the standard of proof for clear and convincing evidence. The burden of proof was on the Administrator. This means that the administrator was required to produce evidence to substantiate his claim. The statute enacted by the legislature is very specific. It required NOTIFICATION. The panel suggests that Mary’s siblings had knowledge. There was no testimony from either sibling that she was notified so that she could have knowledge and there was no testimony that anyone had specifically notified the two siblings of the hearing to declare Mary Sykes incompetent. This evidence because of the clear and convincing standard had to specific. A naked denial is not evidence, except as to CYA.
a. Neither of the sisters of Mary Sykes was called as a witness to testify. Even Gloria Sykes was not called to testify. However, of record is the fact that Gloria Sykes has filed an uncontested affidavit that can only be interpreted as averring that these proceedings were promulgated to silence a ‘loud mouth attorney’ who was calling for an investigation and exercising his First Amendment Rights.
b. In discovery the Administrator refused to disclose what if any statements that respondent had made that were untrue and admitted to having no evidence as to critical factual scenarios.
3) That Administrator and panel acted in a discriminatory manner toward the respondent, but ignored the actions of the two guardian ad litem and the attorney for the plenary guardian. . The mission statement of the ARDC has the word: “promote and protect the integrity of the legal profession,” As the panel remarked, Illinois has been embarrassed by 15 judges and a number of attorneys going to jail in the Greylord scandal. The respondent urges this review panel to read the clear words of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 10(f). Then examine Judge Connor’s deposition and recall that she has been administrating the act for a decade (TR 8 ). As Judge, Judge Connors is required to not only know the law but the cases that interpret it. Sodini and Steinfeld were published and known to the legal profession since prior to 1994. On page 90 of her evidence deposition Judge Connors respondent to the question by Ms. Black?
Q Is it your testimony that the individuals who would have been required to get the Sodini notices were present in Court?
Judge Connors: “I believe so. Again. I’d like to read that section again because I think at the end of that section it says “ as the Court directs”
So let’s say you have got a family with somebody that has 13 brother and sisters and 30o blah, blah, Blah, but they have kids. So I want to make sure that the spouse and the children are notified. Those are the first two that have to be notified.
Of course you want to notify everybody else, but those are the ones that would have the closest interest to the person. So when I saw this case, are the children notified? Yes, they are. Is there a spouse? No, the spouse is deceased. Okay.
Maybe I didn’t inquire about the sisters, I don’t know. But eventually the sisters found out about it. So I assumed that the appropriate people were notified when I made the appointment as to her adjudication.
If I’m — if there is a motion that comes forward relative to someone who should be included and, against, that’s the court’s decision I think as the Court says should be notified, I could vacate my finding, have the sisters notified, go through the who thing against. We would come to same result. But again, I don’t specifically recall who was notified on the date of the adjudication because this adjudication took a while because there were objections from the daughter.
So I wish I had it in front of me, but I don’t recall specifically if the sister can in and submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the court or if they were notified formally at one time.”
Indeed, the Court record gives no indication that there were the appropriate jurisdictional notifications! The panel’s assumption that the sister’s (and/or Gloria Sykes) had 14 days prior notice of the statute is unfounded and contrary to the evidence. As this fact is the lodestone event in this ARDC prosecution of the respondent serious error has occurred herein[1]. Key phrases from the Judge’s statement on pages 90 and 91 of her deposition are reiterated herein and examined, to wit:
1. “ as the Court directs” Section 10f is jurisdictional – there is no discretion. Either the statute is complied with or there is no jurisdiction. Sodini makes that fact abundantly clear. Lawyers and Judges are presumed to know the law! It is extremely corrupt and inappropriate for a judge to administer the law and no know the cases and the statutes in which he/she is required to interpret to protect the liberty and property rights of citizens.
2. “But eventually the sisters found out about it.” Indeed! Jurisdiction requires not eventually they finding out about the loss their sister’s liberty and property rights! The statute requires that 14 days prior notice be afforded. This is a due process matter. Assuming that Mary Sykes was seriously disabled notice to her would be a nullity and therefore effective notice had to be given to someone having an interest in her welfare. Just knowing ex-post facto is unacceptable and our Supreme Court has as stated supra made a determination. The mission of the ARDC is to promote and protect the integrity of the legal profession” It is respectfully suggested that the integrity of the legal profession is not being promoted when jurisdiction is so cavalierly treated. In fact Canon 8.4 is being violated by this prosecution.
3. “I assumed that the appropriate people were notified when I made the appointment as to her adjudication” The standard for the determination and the appointment of a guardian for an alleged disabled person is “clear and convincing.” The panel points out that there was no testimony taken, thus the basic criterion of Article 1 of the Illinois Constitution is admitted as not being applicable to Mary Sykes.
4. “if there is a motion that comes forward relative to someone who should be included and, against, that’s the court’s decision I think as the Court says should be notified, I could vacate my finding, have the sisters notified, go through the who thing against. We would come to same result” Respondent did raise the issue and raised it in the successful appeal of the sanction order entered by this Judge who knew or should have known that she had no jurisdiction over the respondent when she determined he was subject to sanction. The last ½ dozen words of the quote are respectfully submitted to an admission of the corruption that is the subject matter of the complaint. The fact that one or dozen judges violate the law and appoint ‘judicial officials’ without proper jurisdiction does not make it right and does not obviate or vitiate the impropriety.
The quoted answer of Judge Connors was the evidence offered by the Administrator as his re-direct along with another question that it is respectfully suggested illustrates the ‘bias’ that exists in this prosecution. This panel has before it the statement of the Supreme Court’s In re Estate of Steinfeld, 158 Ill. 2d 1, 12-13, 630 N.E.2d 801, 806-07 (1994) and the criterion that is admitted by the testimony elected by the Administrator as being ignored[2]
The Presiding Judge is not alone in the irregularities admitted by Judge that obviates any claim that any of the statements made by respondent are false. The hearing panel glossed over the fact that even though required by 5/11 a – 8 all the persons entitled to notice were not listed on the petition as well as the very person who was named in a Petition by Mary Sykes for an order of protection was appointed her guardian. Rationalizing further, the panel ignores the Supreme Court and the Appellate Court rulings based upon Sodini and further glosses over the fact that the Administrator failed to meet his burden of proof in that he presented no evidence that the two siblings and Gloria Sykes were provided the required timely, prior 14 days’ notice of the hearing.
Of course the Administrator failed to present the Common Law Record in the Sykes case and any evidence of any affidavits of service, returns of service etc. This deficiency was rationalized by the ‘naked’ statement that the two siblings knew of the proceedings! Naturally neither sibling nor Gloria Sykes was called as a witness. Clairvoyance is not recognized as competent evidence even when presented by “judicial officials” Cynthia Farenga and Adam Stern.
The irregularities that occurred in the Sykes matter are legend and too numerous to discuss herein even though claimed by the Administrator to be ‘lied’ made recklessly by the respondent. The common law record, even though ignored by the Administrator and the hearing panel refuses any suggestion of inaccuracy in any of the e-mails or other communicates made by the respondent pursuant to his First Amendment Rights.
As an example the Sykes record of August 31, 2009 (more than 30 days after the filing of the petition) revealed (TR 44, 45,46, 47) that the transcript of that hearing had the Judge engage in the following repartee with the attorney for the petitioner:
“**** Is there going to be a CCP 21ll here, a doctor’s report”
“Mr. Waller” I don’t know. My client can advise me, but I think the doctor is balking at doing it for some reason. I think he’s been instructed —
The court: Well maybe they can bring her to see another doctor then.”
The statement “Well maybe they can bring her to see another doctor” is not one of the sterling examples of judicial behavior. It should be noted that Judge Connors on page 47 of her deposition admitted that the standard of proof was ‘clear and convincing” and did not deny that this quoted section was her statement! Disturbingly the Judge then volunteered that
“if Mrs. Sykes asked for a hearing there would have been all kinds of other evidence.” TR 49.
How would the trier of fact know what if anything the persons that Mary Sykes requested an order of protection concerning would present as evidence? It is most telling that the transcript of proceedings then reveals that Mr. Stern recommended certain doctors.
On page 50 of her deposition, the Judge was asked:
Q. Do you recall her saying the words and phrases to the effect that “how can this be happening to me?” ****
A. She may well have. A lot of senior take that attitude.*****
A fair reading to the e-mails and complaints to law enforcement by a trier of fact, and a reading of the Government Accounting Office Report that details dozens of similar scenarios such as Sykes (in the same package in which the Connor’s deposition is found) suggests that the United States Government Accounting Offices Report to Congress was consistent with the unusual events that took place in the Sykes and citizens were addressing the same in the manner protected by Article 1 to the Illinois Constitution and the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
4) The Administrator in these proceedings was not required to either specify what if any statements, if any, of the respondent were untrue, or prove that a statement was untrue. The Panel in spite of overwhelming evidence of misconduct on the part of the “judicial officials” in derogation of the vested and protected rights of Mary Sykes made the naked assertion the total lack of proof was sufficient for the panel to claim that respondent made a reckless and untrue statement that obviated not only his rights under the First Amendment, but should result in a 4 year suspension from the Practice of Law.
The burden of proof required of the Administrator is clear and convincing. In discovery the respondent requested that there be a disclosure of what statements that he made were untrue. There was no such disclosure. The Administrator’s answers were evasive and totally unresponsive. Similarly it is respectfully submitted the Administrator made no such offer of proof and the panel required none it is assume by the panel that charges substantiated by the Common Law Record of the Sykes case and the statements from Judge Connor’s deposition cited supra that by ‘clear and convincing ‘ lack of evidence the assertion is proven.
Disingenuously that sanction imposed on a soon to be 77 year old attorney who has resided before the bar for more than 50 years is a sanction far in excess of that imposed against an attorney who ‘stole’ his clients’ money. The absurdity of the sanction is not only chilling but outrageous. The lesson from the sanction and the report of the hearing panel drives home the distrust of legal profession and the lesson that if a lawyer ‘breaks the Code of Silence’ to disclose the fact that ‘judicial officials’ appointed by a Court lacking jurisdiction are engaged in conduct that appears to have denied a senior citizen of her liberty, property, human and civil rights he is to struck down. The United States of America in it prosecution of Greylord Judges and lawyers attempted to suggest to the legal profession and in particular the regulators of the judicial profession that such was unacceptable.
Reiterating the context of this matter, it is very clear from the record in the Sykes case and Judge Connor’s deposition that there was no jurisdiction obtained by the Court and the presiding Judge literally allowed Mary Sykes to be railroaded into a guardianship. In her evidence deposition the presiding Judge virtually admitted that all the statutory requirements of the Statute were ignored. The panel and the administrator cannot point to a single document in the Common Law Record to substantiate the Sodini notices were actually served as jurisdictionally required, and at the hearing not one witness could be called to testify that he/she had orally informed the two siblings and/or Mary Sykes of the date, time, and place of the hearing and/or served a copy of the petition on any of the three ladies.
As the Judge and the attorneys are presumed to know the law the failure to provide the prior 14 days’ notice referred to in Sodini and the statute must be deemed ‘intentional acts.’ As Mary Sykes’ liberty was taken from her the panel cannot assert that any statement of misconduct concerning the activities of the Court (acting without jurisdiction) is lawful. Thus respondent’s statements have not been proven false by even a scintilla of evidence. It therefore follows that respondent’s statement are truthful and there is no reckless untruthful statements upon which to give cover to the willful violation of the respondent’s First Amendment Rights[3].
The call for an investigation and the appeals to law enforcement are protected activities. The attempt to prevent those activities is unconscionable and exemplifies either an attempt at denying respondent his ‘civil rights’ under color of statute 42 USCA 1983, and worse. The panel’s statement of facts admits that the ‘gold coins’ were not inventoried. Ms. Farenga’s testimony admits that she and Stern had no knowledge as to what was taken from the Safety deposit box and thus, the Administrator failed to provide scintilla of evidence that the assertion that a million dollars in gold coins were removed from the safety deposit box and not inventoried. The administrator could have called Gloria Sykes and Aunt Jo Bakken to testify, but chose not to do so.
The responses of the Administrator to discovery are illustrative of the ‘double standard’ and the deficiency of proof. The failure to call witness is illustrative of the disrespect for the law that is prevalent in the panel’s ruling, the administrator’s case in chief and the admitted disregard of the Jurisdictional Statutory protections that the legislature decreed that disabled persons are entitled.
5) Torture of the Canons of Ethics to obviate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution is unethical and a violation of the Canons.
The torture of the Canons of Ethics to silence a targeted attorney who complains as to particular subject matter while a new phenomenon in the United States has become more and more common as illustrated by this panel’s report. How can the canons of ethics are violated by a cry by an attorney for an investigation of what appears of record in the Sykes case as a miscarriage of Justice. Even a pre-teen required to pass his/her Constitution test (in Illinois) has to know that the First Amendment protection fundamentally extends to even attorney’s rights to petition the government.
The instant attempt to subvert the First Amendment by the Administrator and the panel is unprecedented. It is respectfully submitted to be most egregious and placed the entire legal system into disrepute. How can seasoned licensed attorneys being paid with tax-payer money not be cognizant of the very Constitutional principles that pre-teens know as a condition precedent to their entry in High School!
Recently the Virginia Supreme Court in an opinion dated February 28, 2013 rejected an attempt to silence a blog. A copy of the decision is attached hereto and made part hereof as exhibit 1.
the United States Supreme Court cases of Aschcroft v American Civil Liberties Union 535 US 564, Brownv Entm’t Merchants Ass’n 131 S. Ct 2729,United States v Alvarez 132 S.Ct. 2537 and New York Times vs. Sullivan 376 U.S. 254 clearly set forth the mandate of the First Amendment that as a citizen the respondent can speak out candidly on any subject at any time without censorship. In particular, it is respectfully suggested that the panel and the administrator are acting to place the legal profession in disrepute by demonstrating their lack of respect for the First Amendment and Article 1 of the Illinois Constitution.
6) The Administrator, the legal profession, the Judicial officials appointed by a Court lacking jurisdiction and Panel are all under a duty to uphold the Constitution of both the United States of America and the State of Illinois.
The evidence deposition examination of Judge Connors is clear in pointing out a corruption in the Probate Division of the Circuit Court. Corruption does not have to involve bribe taking! It is a form of corruption to deny a senior citizen of her liberty and property rights! Indeed, the Administrator’s answers to discovery are a repudiation of the concept of ‘fair play and honesty that is demanded of lawyers. The panel’s report, the administrators failure to plead and prove by clear and convincing evidence that any of the statements made by the respondent was untrue is reprehensible and worthy of the Greylord scenario. The failure of the panel to call key witnesses such as Gloria Sykes, Jo Bakken, Kathy Bakken, Scott Evans, and Mary Sykes is indicative of ‘corruption!’
The Failure of the Administrator to provide a speck of evidence that Gloria Sykes, and Mary’s two siblings were given the required 14 days prior notice is telling. Now the first four volumes of the Sykes transcript are on-line and this panel can examine them. They will find no affidavit of service, no return of service, and nothing to indicate any waiver of service. What the review panel will find is instead Judge Connor telling the applicant for guardian to go out and find a doctor who will certify Mary incompetent; a failure to prove Mary incompetent by clear and convincing evidence; two guardian ad litem appointed in small estate – according to inventory; and numerous anomalies of jurisprudence that are believed by most of the public to be foreign to the United States of America.
6) The respondent has been denied Equal Protection of the Law and the proceedings conducted are patently violative of the written policy of the State of Illinois encoded as 735 ILCS 110/5 and et seq.
The respondent has been practicing law for half a century. As a practicing lawyer respondent recognizes a duty to act in a moral and ethical manner. What this means is demonstrating a daily respect for American democracy, the Judeo/Christian ethic and the Constitution of both the State of Illinois and the United States of America. Thus, as the panel recognizes the respondent has no pecuniary interest in the Sykes case of any of the similar cases that he has demanded be investigated by law enforcement. Indeed, the only fund that counsel received was an initial retainer of $1000.00. Why then has respondent been so adamant? Conscience! A human being who believes in America and its principles cannot and will not remain silent when a fellow human being is openly and notoriously deprived of her liberty, her property, her civil rights and humans – as has been Mary Sykes!
As a human being respondent is not repentant for ‘standing up’ for the liberty and property rights of Mary Sykes and people similarly situated. To do less would be amoral and denigrate what so many citizens of the United States of America have sacrificed. The fact that the Administrator, the judicial officials appointed by a Court lacking jurisdiction, and others can ignore their human responsibilities the respondent can and will not, but vows to continue whether suspended for four years or disbarred to continue to do his sworn duty as an American.
[1] The hearing panel in their analysis of the facts presented does not appear concerned that there are a number of jurisdictional lapses that are highlighted. The first and most important is the fact that the Administrator failed to provide any evidence that the Circuit Court that created the “judicial officials” ever acquired jurisdiction. As indicated by the Sodini case referred to in Steinfeld it is apparent that without the required 14 day notices all that was transpiring in the Circuit Court was without jurisdiction. Thus, respondent was prosecuted for complaining that the Circuit Court “judicial officials had taken Mary Sykes’ liberty and property without either due process or jurisdiction.
2] I have not used the words allegedly because the affidavits filed with the pleadings are clear in verifying the averments. The ARDC and its administrator have the same criterion to meet as do private litigants. In particular an investigation must be conducted to determine if the averments are credible. An examination of the Common Law record would reveal on day one that jurisdictional issues were ignored. There is no return of service of the petition on the nearest relatives and no affidavit of service oral or otherwise. It should be noted that the hearing panel is silent as to how, when, or in what manner the two siblings who were required to be notified and were not received the knowledge that they were not called to testify concerning.
[3] The fact that there are two guardian ad litem in an estate of the size disclosed by the inventory herein is a ‘red flag’ and the fact that they were retained for three years is almost obscene. The panel makes mention of the fact, but fails to suggest a credible reason that would justify the estate paying three sets of attorney fees plus the fees of the plenary guardian.
[4] The panel concludes that that it was unjustified for counsel to complain. Ms. J Bakken in open court (probate) described the container in which the coins were kept and Ms. Gloria Sykes disclosed in paragraph 5 the coins and how she and her mother came to have them. Gloria Sykes was not called as a witness, nor was Mrs. J. Bakken by the administrator.
[1] It is respectfully suggested that without the Sodini Notices being served the proceedings before Judge Connors were nullities as the Court lacked jurisdiction. This is not a sporting event in which critical errors are just part of game. Not only is the respondent’s reputation being sullied, but the liberty interest of real senior citizens is being taken from them.
The statement quoted supra from pages 90 and 91 of Judge Connor’s deposition are shocking and scary. The Illinois Legislature adopted a comprehensive program to protect seniors. Contrary to Judge Connor’s statement this program was not optional or discretionary.
Each aspect of the program was designed to protect the senior citizen. The stated purpose of the statutory enactment was not to provide ‘income’ to attorney’s appointed as ‘judicial officials’ by a Court lacking jurisdiction. The purpose was to protect Mary Sykes and persons similarly situated. The purpose was to aid the person to the extent the he/she needed help, not to be a ‘death sentence’ and a total loss of liberty. (see 11a – 17 and 11a – 18). In that regard the Petition had to make certain disclosures ( 11a – ), the venue had to be such that the ‘ward’ was protected, notice had to be specific, timely, prior, and 14 days before the hearing (jurisdictional). The rights (like Miranda rights) had to be disclosed. The burden of proof imposed was procrustean and required the applicant to present clear and convincing evidence. The administration of the Estate gentile and carefully supervised by the Court.
The respondent urges the review panel (and the Illinois Supreme Court) to review the cross examination and the redirect of Judge Connors and compare it to the statutory motivation and scheme. It is respectfully suggested that what happened in Sykes (and in these proceedings involving the respond) separated by worlds.
[2] . The statute states:
§ 11a-10. Procedures preliminary to hearing.
(a) Upon the filing of a petition pursuant to Section 11a-8, the court shall set a date and place for hearing to take place within 30 days. The court shall appoint a guardian ad litem to report to the court concerning the respondent’s best interests consistent with the provisions of this Section, except that the appointment of a guardian ad litem shall not be required when the court determines that such appointment is not necessary for the protection of the respondent or a reasonably informed decision on the petition. If the guardian ad litem is not a licensed attorney, he or she shall be qualified, by training or experience, to work with or advocate for the developmentally disabled, mentally ill, physically disabled, the elderly, or persons disabled because of mental deterioration, depending on the type of disability that is alleged in the petition. The court may allow the guardian ad litem reasonable compensation. The guardian ad litem may consult with a person who by training or experience is qualified to work with persons with a developmental disability, persons with mental illness, or physically disabled persons, or persons disabled because of mental deterioration, depending on the type of disability that is alleged. The guardian ad litem shall personally observe the respondent prior to the hearing and shall inform him orally and in writing of the contents of the petition and of his rights under Section 11a-11. The guardian ad litem shall also attempt to elicit the respondent’s position concerning the adjudication of disability, the proposed guardian, a proposed change in residential placement, changes in care that might result from the guardianship, and other areas of inquiry deemed appropriate by the court. Notwithstanding any provision in the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Confidentiality Act or any other law, a guardian ad litem shall have the right to inspect and copy any medical or mental health record of the respondent which the guardian ad litem deems necessary, provided that the information so disclosed shall not be utilized for any other purpose nor be redisclosed except in connection with the proceedings. At or before the hearing, the guardian ad litem shall file a written report detailing his or her observations of the respondent, the responses of the respondent to any of the inquires detailed in this Section, the opinion of the guardian ad litem or other professionals with whom the guardian ad litem consulted concerning the appropriateness of guardianship, and any other material issue discovered by the guardian ad litem. The guardian ad litem shall appear at the hearing and testify as to any issues presented in his or her report.
(b) The court (1) may appoint counsel for the respondent, if the court finds that the interests of the respondent will be best served by the appointment, and (2) shall appoint counsel upon respondent’s request or if the respondent takes a position adverse to that of the guardian ad litem. The respondent shall be permitted to obtain the appointment of counsel either at the hearing or by any written or oral request communicated to the court prior to the hearing. The summons shall inform the respondent of this right to obtain appointed counsel. The court may allow counsel for the respondent reasonable compensation.
(c) If the respondent is unable to pay the fee of the guardian ad litem or appointed counsel, or both, the court may enter an order for the petitioner to pay all such fees or such amounts as the respondent or the respondent’s estate may be unable to pay. However, in cases where the Office of State Guardian is the petitioner, consistent with Section 30 of the Guardianship and Advocacy Act,1 where the public guardian is the petitioner, consistent with Section 13-5 of the Probate Act of 1975, where an elder abuse provider agency is the petitioner, pursuant to Section 9 of the Elder Abuse and Neglect Act,2 or where the Department of Human Services Office of Inspector General is the petitioner, consistent with Section 45 of the Abuse of Adults with Disabilities Intervention Act, no guardian ad litem or legal fees shall be assessed against the Office of State Guardian, the public guardian, the elder abuse provider agency, or the Department of Human Services Office of Inspector General.
(d) The hearing may be held at such convenient place as the court directs, including at a facility in which the respondent resides.
(e) Unless he is the petitioner, the respondent shall be personally served with a copy of the petition and a summons not less than 14 days before the hearing. The summons shall be printed in large, bold type and shall include the following notice:
|
NOTICE OF RIGHTS OF RESPONDENT
|
|
You have been named as a respondent in a guardianship petition asking that you be declared a disabled person. If the court grants the petition, a guardian will be appointed for you. A copy of the guardianship petition is attached for your convenience.
|
|
The date and time of the hearing are:
|
|
The place where the hearing will occur is:
|
|
The Judge’s name and phone number is:
|
If a guardian is appointed for you, the guardian may be given the right to make all important personal decisions for you, such as where you may live, what medical treatment you may receive, what places you may visit, and who may visit you. A guardian may also be given the right to control and manage your money and other property, including your home, if you own one. You may lose the right to make these decisions for yourself.
You have the following legal rights:
(1) You have the right to be present at the court hearing.
(2) You have the right to be represented by a lawyer, either one that you retain, or one appointed by the Judge.
(3) You have the right to ask for a jury of six persons to hear your case.
(4) You have the right to present evidence to the court and to confront and cross-examine witnesses.
(5) You have the right to ask the Judge to appoint an independent expert to examine you and give an opinion about your need for a guardian.
(6) You have the right to ask that the court hearing be closed to the public.
(7) You have the right to tell the court whom you prefer to have for your guardian.
You do not have to attend the court hearing if you do not want to be there. If you do not attend, the Judge may appoint a guardian if the Judge finds that a guardian would be of benefit to you. The hearing will not be postponed or canceled if you do not attend.
IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT YOU ATTEND THE HEARING IF YOU DO NOT WANT A GUARDIAN OR IF YOU WANT SOMEONE OTHER THAN THE PERSON NAMED IN THE GUARDIANSHIP PETITION TO BE YOUR GUARDIAN. IF YOU DO NOT WANT A GUARDIAN OF IF YOU HAVE ANY OTHER PROBLEMS, YOU SHOULD CONTACT AN ATTORNEY OR COME TO COURT AND TELL THE JUDGE.
Service of summons and the petition may be made by a private person 18 years of age or over who is not a party to the action.
(f) Notice of the time and place of the hearing shall be given by the petitioner by mail or in person to those persons, including the proposed guardian, whose names and addresses appear in the petition and who do not waive notice, not less than 14 days before the hearing. IL ST CH 755 § 5/11a-10 (emphasis mine)
[3] It is frustrating to have to address a will of the wisp. Perpetuation of the same is not proof by clear and convincing evidence, it is at best unethical obstruction of Justice. The reckless claim of the Administrator that respondent ‘lied’ is a serious violation of the Canons of ethics and in particular 8.4. It is respectfully submitted that all the Administrator or the panel had to do was to review the record here and the Court Record in Sykes to ascertain on day one that this proceeding is frivolous.
Ken Ditkowsky
From: JoAnne M Denison <jdenison@surfree.com>
To: kenneth ditkowsky <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>; Sharon Opryszek Ill ardc <sopryszek@iardc.org>; Melissa Smart Ill ARDC <msmart@iardc.org>; “illinois.ardc”Illinois ARDC” <illinois.ardc@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2013 8:51 AM
Subject: Re: Revised Report to court
Dear Ken;At six pm last night, after REPEATED requests to please, please email anything you file, I got a response to my “cease and desist” letter in the mail. They have known about the gmail sharing for weeks now but refuse to do it. You can lead a horse to water, but he still might dehydrate to death–if he’s an ARDC horse.
It was soooo bizarre, it was comical.
The ARDC’s answer to my “cease and desist” letter–is guess what? To strike it. That’s right, strike it.
They did not even know what it was (if you sue after notice of infringment and copyright and the infringer continues, this creates a good case for enhanced–ie, treble damages).
Their main excuse was “fair use” but I see nothing “fair use” about publishing the contents of my/your creative works without acknowledgement, and without a copyright notice to others, and “used without author‘s permission.” These writings were not used for internal court documents, but were published on the internet without prior authorization and a proper license agreement.
Their fair use hinges on the fact “they make no money off of the infringement”–a position rejected long ago by the courts. Besides, once the material is put up on the ARDC website without a warning, law book publishers believe (mistakenly) they are in fact allowed to use it, that the litigants entered into a license agreement to publish. Many states receive good money from law book publishers to download or further publish their works, and it is likely that downloading and “selling” my/your copyrights is not unlikely because it is common in the relevant business or trade. Today, the ARDC might not receive a dime from law book publishing (I have no idea why they don’t do this to raise funds–for their victims fund of probate victims), but tomorrow, there may be substantial income from a law book publisher. Again, pleadings are not copyrightable because they are supposed to consist of mere recitations of fact–like a phone book, but creative writings for a blog are entirely different.
Fair use defenses generally depend upon 1) how much material was taken (in this case 16 paragraphs of what you and I wrote–fair use is generally considered a sentence or two); 2) if the taking was used for educational or personal information (it clearly was not–it was used in the business of the ARDC); 3) if it was absolutely necessary to take ALL of substantially all of the material or if it could have been paraphrased or infringement avoided in other ways (the ARDC could have paraphrased, it could have linked to my website–it had several ways to avoid infringement)), etc.
What I don’t get is I believe a discussion of the “fair use” defense (it is weak and not favored) is on my blog, my website and on the Copyright Office website.
I have to admit, that’s the first time I got a “motion to strike” over a cease and desist letter. Pretty funny. I bet if I search on that in “fastcase” I get zero cases on avoiding enhanced damages by filing a “motion to strike” a cease and desist letter filed with a court.joanne
PS– okay to publish?
PPS–SO and MS this is how you avoid infringment issues. BEFORE you publish, you ASK the author(s) for permission in writing.
—–Original Message—–
From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: May 7, 2013 5:42 AM
To: JoAnne M Denison , Sharon Opryszek Ill ardc , Melissa Smart Ill ARDC
Subject: Re: Revised Report to courtOf course you will get no answer – in the situation in which an agency is engaged in wrongful conduct it not uncommon for them to go into ‘cover up’ mode. The attempt to deny you your Constitutional Rights will take the flavor of saying that you are not telling the truth even though all the evidence is that every word that was pubished is true.In my case as an example all the evidence is that every e-mail sent by me contained truthful statements. In fact in discovery the Administrator admitted that he had no information that any statement was untrue; however, when you read the Hearing Board’s decision they gloss over that fact. All that the panel had to do was read the last two questions that Ms. Black put to Judge Connors and then read Connor’s answers and it was clear that the proceeding against me was ‘bogus!’Judge Connor’s deposition reveals that she has been administrating the act for a decade (TR 8 ). As Judge, Judge Connors is required to not only know the law but the cases that interpret it. Sodini and Steinfeld were published and known to the legal profession since prior to 1994. On page 90 of her evidence deposition Judge Connors respondent to the question by Ms. Black?Q Is it your testimony that the individuals who would have been required to get the Sodini notices were present in Court?Judge Connors: I believe so. Again. I’d like to read that section again because I think at the end of that section it says “ as the Court directs”So let’s say you have got a family with somebody that has 13 brother and sisters and 30o blah, blah, Blah, but they have kids. So I want to make sure that the spouse and the children are notified. Those are the first two that have to be notified.Of course you want to notify everybody else, but those are the ones that would have the closest interest to the person. So when I saw this case, are the children notified? Yes, they are. Is there a spouse? No, the spouse is deceased. Okay.Maybe I didn’t inquire about the sisters, I don’t know. But eventually the sisters found out about it. So I assumed that the appropriate people were notified when I made the appointment as to her adjudication.If I’m — if there is a motion that comes forward relative to someone who should be included and, against, that’s the court’s decision I think as the Court says should be notified, I could vacate my finding, have the sisters notified, go through the who thing against. We would come to same result. But again, I don’t specifically recall who was notified on the date of the adjudication because this adjudication took a while because there were objections from the daughter.So I wish I had it in front of me, but I don’t recall specifically if the sister can in and submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the court or if they were notified formally at one time.Indeed, the Court record gives no indication that there were the appropriate jurisdictional notifications! The panel’s assumption that the sister’s (and/or Gloria Sykes) had 14 days prior notice of the statute is unfounded and contrary to the evidence. As this fact is the lodestone event in this ARDC prosecution of the respondent serious error has occurred herein.What is also a very serious deficiency that defames the legal profession and does not cover it or the panel’s decision with glory is the comparison between the jurisdictional statute and the words of the Judge who has for more than a decade administered the act, to wit:1. “ as the Court directs” Section 10f is jurisdictional – there is no discretion. Either the statute is complied with or there is no jurisdiction. Sodini makes that fact abundantly clear. Lawyers and Judges are presumed to know the law! It is extremely corrupt and inappropriate for a judge to administer the law and no know the cases and the statutes in which he/she is required to interpret to protect the liberty and property rights of citizens.2. “But eventually the sisters found out about it.” Indeed! Jurisdiction requires not eventually they finding out about the loss their sister’s liberty and property rights! The statute requires that 14 days prior notice be afforded. This is a due process matter. Assuming that Mary Sykes was seriously disabled notice to her would be a nullity and therefore effective notice had to be given to someone having an interest in her welfare. Just knowing ex-post facto is unacceptable and our Supreme Court has as stated supra made a determination. The mission of the ARDC is to promote and protect the integrity of the legal profession” It is respectfully suggested that the integrity of the legal profession is not being promoted when jurisdiction is so cavalierly treated. In fact Canon 8.4 is being violated by this prosecution.3. “I assumed that the appropriate people were notified when I made the appointment as to her adjudication” The standard for the determination and the appointment of a guardian for an alleged disabled person is “clear and convincing.” The panel points out that there was no testimony taken, thus the basic criterion of Article 1 of the Illinois Constitution is admitted as not being applicable to Mary Sykes.4. “if there is a motion that comes forward relative to someone who should be included and, against, that’s the court’s decision I think as the Court says should be notified, I could vacate my finding, have the sisters notified, go through the who thing against. We would come to same result” Respondent did raise the issue and raised it in the successful appeal of the sanction order entered by this Judge who knew or should have known that she had no jurisdiction over the respondent when she determined he was subject to sanction. The last ½ dozen words of the quote are respectfully submitted to an admission of the corruption that is the subject matter of the complaint. The fact that one or dozen judges violate the law and appoint ‘judicial officials’ without proper jurisdiction does not make it right and does not obviate or vitiate the impropriety.The quoted answer of Judge Connors was the evidence offered by the Administrator as his re-direct along with another question that it is respectfully suggested illustrates the ‘bias’ that exists in this prosecution. This panel has before it the statement of the Supreme Court’s In re Estate of Steinfeld, 158 Ill. 2d 1, 12-13, 630 N.E.2d 801, 806-07 (1994). The statute states:§ 11a-10. Procedures preliminary to hearing.(a) Upon the filing of a petition pursuant to Section 11a-8, the court shall set a date and place for hearing to take place within 30 days. The court shall appoint a guardian ad litem to report to the court concerning the respondent’s best interests consistent with the provisions of this Section, except that the appointment of a guardian ad litem shall not be required when the court determines that such appointment is not necessary for the protection of the respondent or a reasonably informed decision on the petition. If the guardian ad litem is not a licensed attorney, he or she shall be qualified, by training or experience, to work with or advocate for the developmentally disabled, mentally ill, physically disabled, the elderly, or persons disabled because of mental deterioration, depending on the type of disability that is alleged in the petition. The court may allow the guardian ad litem reasonable compensation. The guardian ad litem may consult with a person who by training or experience is qualified to work with persons with a developmental disability, persons with mental illness, or physically disabled persons, or persons disabled because of mental deterioration, depending on the type of disability that is alleged. The guardian ad litem shall personally observe the respondent prior to the hearing and shall inform him orally and in writing of the contents of the petition and of his rights under Section 11a-11. The guardian ad litem shall also attempt to elicit the respondent’s position concerning the adjudication of disability, the proposed guardian, a proposed change in residential placement, changes in care that might result from the guardianship, and other areas of inquiry deemed appropriate by the court. Notwithstanding any provision in the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Confidentiality Act or any other law, a guardian ad litem shall have the right to inspect and copy any medical or mental health record of the respondent which the guardian ad litem deems necessary, provided that the information so disclosed shall not be utilized for any other purpose nor be redisclosed except in connection with the proceedings. At or before the hearing, the guardian ad litem shall file a written report detailing his or her observations of the respondent, the responses of the respondent to any of the inquires detailed in this Section, the opinion of the guardian ad litem or other professionals with whom the guardian ad litem consulted concerning the appropriateness of guardianship, and any other material issue discovered by the guardian ad litem. The guardian ad litem shall appear at the hearing and testify as to any issues presented in his or her report.(b) The court (1) may appoint counsel for the respondent, if the court finds that the interests of the respondent will be best served by the appointment, and (2) shall appoint counsel upon respondent’s request or if the respondent takes a position adverse to that of the guardian ad litem. The respondent shall be permitted to obtain the appointment of counsel either at the hearing or by any written or oral request communicated to the court prior to the hearing. The summons shall inform the respondent of this right to obtain appointed counsel. The court may allow counsel for the respondent reasonable compensation.(c) If the respondent is unable to pay the fee of the guardian ad litem or appointed counsel, or both, the court may enter an order for the petitioner to pay all such fees or such amounts as the respondent or the respondent’s estate may be unable to pay. However, in cases where the Office of State Guardian is the petitioner, consistent with Section 30 of the Guardianship and Advocacy Act,1 where the public guardian is the petitioner, consistent with Section 13-5 of the Probate Act of 1975, where an elder abuse provider agency is the petitioner, pursuant to Section 9 of the Elder Abuse and Neglect Act,2 or where the Department of Human Services Office of Inspector General is the petitioner, consistent with Section 45 of the Abuse of Adults with Disabilities Intervention Act, no guardian ad litem or legal fees shall be assessed against the Office of State Guardian, the public guardian, the elder abuse provider agency, or the Department of Human Services Office of Inspector General.(d) The hearing may be held at such convenient place as the court directs, including at a facility in which the respondent resides.(e) Unless he is the petitioner, the respondent shall be personally served with a copy of the petition and a summons not less than 14 days before the hearing. The summons shall be printed in large, bold type and shall include the following notice:
Indeed, you have fallen down the rabbit hole! Right is wrong and wrong is right! This is very much like the Soviet gulag! The real question is whether or not the American Public, like the German public of 1930’s will tolerate this type of scenario and loss of their liberty. The ‘lie’ that any of the statements made in the e-mails are reckless untruths is being published even though the ARDC, the Court and everyone else knows that every allegation is true. How do the Administrators of the ARDC sleep at night when they appear to be engaged in a Conspiracy to deprive citizens of their Constitutional Rights and after reading the Connor’s depostion have clear and convincing proof. How can they prosecute you in light of the New York Times case and section 230.The most shameful part of all of this is that the taxpayer of the State of Illinois is paying for this perfidy!Ken DitkowskyFrom: JoAnne M Denison <jdenison@surfree.com>
To: Sharon Opryszek Ill ardc <sopryszek@iardc.org>; Melissa Smart Ill ARDC <msmart@iardc.org>
Sent: Monday, May 6, 2013 11:52 PM
Subject: Revised Report to court
Ooops, I forgot you all were going to respond to my cease and desist re copyright infringement.where is that at?
I have the registration, in hand.
thanks
joanne.
ps–please remember to email these to chair lee because if you do it he thinks it is not an ex parte communication, but if I do it and cc you for some reason he thinks it is. no one has explained all of that, but i find it very interesting.
i think I’ve fallen down the rabbit hole. the only question is, how deep is the rabbit hole.
strange. whatever.
JoAnne Denison Denison & Assocs, PC 1512 N. Freemont St, #202 Chicago, IL 60642-2694 Patents, Trademarks & Copyrights Email me at JoAnne@Denisonlaw.com Cell Phone 773-255-7608 Work Ph 312-553-1300 efax 312-376-8842 See our website at www.DenisonLaw.com
MaryGSykes.com 
BTW, I mentioned your case in one of my own blog posts this week. Hope they don’t try to silence me too!
http://jpstillwater.blogspot.com/2013/05/stuck-in-history-mothers-day-niles.html