Ken Ditkowsky’s totally Excellent Response to the Tribunal

For anyone that needs a lesson in Constitutional Law, we stand ready, willing and able to teach the constitution to any ears willing to hear!

Below is KDD’s final response to the Tribunal and he has done a wonderful job of balancing their concerns, teaching consitutional law and sticking up for YOU, the public and the you the probate abuse victim who has found no purchase, no rest and no justice in the Probate courts.  Ken and I are here for you and will never, ever leave you–no matter what the ARDC says.  Ethics, morality, due respect for the law and constitution transcends any BS opinion any Moe-Larry-Curly judicial system can spew out like the effluent from my sewage and sump pump.

Our ancestors fought against the Red Coats for the right to do and say and parody anything we want.  Just because I took an oath to be an attorney does NOT mean I will lie to you, or be silent about what I see in the court rooms.  The judges and opposing counsel, far as I know do NOT wear Pull Ups to court.  They have 7 or more years of college and can handle and take it.  I have no idea why the ARDC treats US judges, the court system and opposing counsel like eggs packed in a styrofoam container. Just whom are the protecting?

98% of the US population does not trust the government and let’s be realistic. Despite the gangs, the drugs, the wife beaters, we don’t give up guns because WE ARE AFRAID OF THE GOVERNMENT HAVING TOO MUCH POWER and not respecting the rights of citizens.

Today I saw an article in the Reader about our “addiction to guns”.  While I am a devout pacivist and do not advocate them, the 2nd amendment was created to protect the people of a democracy from a too strong government–which is the reason we killed the Red Coats  circa 1770.

When the courts have no meaning, and the executive branch is really a branch of mega military war profiteers, then the country devolves into anarchy.

Our constitution means something and was well thought out.  We DO have First Amendment rights–ARDC tribunals– and they mean something.

Lawyers should be the leaders for democracy and a free country. Instead what we could easily devolve into is a puppet state with an ARDC that only protects CYA and a bunch of sorry a** politicians.

When the courts are wrong, the public gets to say they are wrong. When the lawyers see what the courts are doing is wrong, they get to say what the courts are doing is wrong.  Of course, lawyers should cite to pleadings, affidavits, depositions, transcripts, etc. BUT LAWYERS GET TO SAY WHAT IS GOING ON IN OUR COURT IS WRONG WHEN IT IS WRONG AND IT IS NOT DEMOCRATIC AND FREE SPEECH.

Ken’s brief is totally on.  We don’t need a bunch of court appointed hacks and tied in, on a secret list bunch of cronyistic attys to tell us what we want for our probate laws and probate system.  That is condescending BS.

Stand up for KDD and tell the ARDC that what they are doing is wrong, very wrong and it eats at the very core of the American Democratic System which was established more than 200 years ago and is working very fine when the Constitution is respected, thank you very much.

ILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATION
AND DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION
KENNETH KARL DITKOWSKY,

Attorney-Respondent,
No. 642754
Commission No. 2012 PR 00014

EXCEPTIONS ADDRESSED TO THE REVIEW PANEL
Prefatory statement
Illinois by its legislative enactment in 755 ILCS 5/11a-l et seq. has enacted a
comprehensive program for protecting the liberty and property interests of senior citizens such as Mary Sykes. The respondent as a career attorney recognized a duty to respect the legislative mandates, and is being punished by the Administrator for taking a pro-active stance as a citizen.
The panel in making its findings, totally ignores the criterion enunciated by the legislature and Supreme Court of Illinois designed to protect seniors such as Mary Sykes, 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 Il1.2d 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 lla-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. 110Y2, par. lla-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. 110~, par. lla-l0(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
IIPage
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. 11012, par. lla-lO(f);
seeln 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 in the Sykes case is devoid of one scintilla of proof that at any time the
required prior 14 day notice was given to the nearest relatives of Mary Sykes. No waiver is
claimed and it is unequivocal that the Circuit Court acted (and continues to act) therein without jurisdiction. In point of fact Judge Connor’s evidence deposition clearly indicates the lack of such a requirement in her Court!.
The Administrator is acknowledged by the hearing panel to have to address in these
proceedings the burden of proof of clear and convincing evidence. There is ill! presumption that any statement made by a career lawyer acting in his private capacity is not entitled to all the Constitutional Protections afforded by the Bill of Rights of both the State and Federal Constitutions, nor is there any presumption that a lawyer’s statement not meeting the approval of government and/or the Administrator of the ARDC is either untrue and/or reckless. As pointed out infra, the Supreme Court of the United States has been very specific that ‘content’ related speech is absolutely protected even when abused by the dissemination of violent videos, provocative expressions such as picketing funerals of heroes or Nazi marches in a predominately Jewish Community.
It is disingenuous for any entity supported by taxpayer dollars to expect that a lawyer be
silent concerning the most corrupt act that a Court can engage in, to wit: to act without
I 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.
21Page
jurisdiction in regard to matters in which a citizen (especially a senior citizen) is deprived of her liberty and property rights. The respondent lawyer has an absolute right under the First Amendment to communicate with any, some of, or all of his friends, associates, branches of government, including law enforcement and even enemies. If someone is unhappy concerning receipt of a communication, that person (including the ‘judicial officials’ who were appointed by a Court lacking jurisdiction) does not have to ‘click’ to accept the e-mail and/or they can, by a keystroke, block all communications from the sender. They certainly are not required to search 3rd party blogs.
The concept that appears in the Hearing Board’s report that the disliked communications
are presumed to be untrue and reckless is contrary to not only common sense but abhorrent to the basic tenets of American Democracy2. Certainly the censorship by the ‘de facto ‘Judicial Officials’ and the Administrator do not meet the criterion of ‘clear and convincing.,3
2 At ROP 122 123 Adam Stem complains of an e-mail not addressed to him, which appears to have been sent to others by Gloria Sykes. It is an amazing concept that private communications can be the subject of an ARDC complaint. While it was not brought out how Mr. Stem obtained the e-mail.itis suggested that if the e-mail had been a telephone conversation not only would the communication be in admissible because it was illegally obtained, but the ARDC dealing with an ‘ordinary’ lawyer would be prosecuting the interceptor of the communication.
3 To prove that any statement was or is untrue the Administrator had to prove and the hearing board had to find that:
1) what the words and phrases of the e-mail stated.
2) what facts rendered the e-mail inaccurate
3) that indeed the words and phrase were in fact untrue and
The report of the hearing board suggests that to be unethical and violative of the Canons of Ethics the Administrator must also prove that the words and phrases were recklessly authored. The transcript (no copy was made available to the respondent until five business days after the report of the review panel was received) has revealed that no particular words and phrases were in fact proven to be false. The Administrator was troubled by the
allegation of Gloria Sykes and others that a million dollars in gold coins had been removed from Mary Sykes’ safety deposit box and not inventoried, and called Cynthia Farenga as a witness; however, Ms. Farenga had to admit that neither she or Adam Stem was present when the safety deposit box was opened the contents were removed. It is
significant that the Administrator did not call Gloria Sykes (the younger daughter and co-owner of the box) as a witness, especially since she filed an affidavit herein as to the removal and non-inventory of certain gold coins.
Ms. Yolanda Bakken (Mary’s sister) who described the bag in which the coins were kept in open court also was not called as a witness to testify that respondent’s claim as to the gold coins not being inventoried was false.
As not a single statement made by respondent was proven to be false by the witnesses who had knowledge of the facts, the findings of the hearing board that any of the statement were untrue are rendered not tenable. The statements are not false because the Administrator and/or the ‘judicial officials’ who were appointed by a Court
lacking jurisdiction say they are. Unfortunately, the 40 plus page report appears to make that assumption.
31Page
That 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.
A member of the public, after reading the decision of the hearing board in this case
remarked:
“The decision makes it perfectly clear that the Illinois ARDC feels that ‘judicial officials’
separating a senior citizen such as Mary Sykes from her liberty and property of over a
million dollars is perfectly acceptable. The Supreme Court in Brown approved the act of
depicting Mary Sykes being ravaged in the most vivid terms as acceptable, and the
Illinois ARDC has condemned an attorney speaking of it or reporting the act to law
enforcement. ”
The member of the public was referring to the recent case of Brown v. Entm’t Merchants
Ass’n 131 S. Ct 2729.
This proceeding is a proceeding in which the Administrator and his hearing panel have
determined that an attorney, whether or not he has a pecuniary interest in a proceeding involving a senior citizen’s claim that she was deprived of her liberty and property rights has no right to make a public complaint. The ethical prohibition to complain that either a Judge or a person appointed by the Judge has acted improperly thus, creates Issue One i.e.; Whether the First Amendment (and Article One of the Illinois Constitution) are applicable to citizens who have law degrees4
• Simply put – is the First Amendment in Full Force and Effect for all
4 See affidavits of Gloria Sykes and Scott Evans.
41Page
citizens, or just some of them? The evidence is unequivocal that respondent as a stranger to the Sykes case and having no expectation of remuneration therefrom is being punished for complaining that he and others observed a Court acting without jurisdiction to deny a senior citizen of her liberty and property rights.
Issue Two is whether or not the standard of proof – clear and convincing evidence
has been met.
Issue Three is whether or not in the prosecution of an attorney for exercising his
First Amendment Rights the Administrator is required to plead and prove the facts upon
which the prosecution is based.
Issue Four is whether or not in the prosecution of an attorney for exercising his First
Amendment Rights the Administrator has to present evidence in which witnesses testify
that they were misled, they had knowledge, etc.
Standard of Review
“Whether the inherent character of a statement places it beyond the protection of
the First Amendment is a question of law over which *** this Court exercises (s) de
novo review.” Peel v ARDC 496 US 191, 108 (1990). An Appellate Court must
independently examine the entire record in First Amendment cases to ensure that”
‘a forbidden intrusion on the field of free expression’ “has not occurred Bose Corp
v. Consumers Union of United States Inc., 466 US 485, 490 (1984) quoting New York
Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 US, 254, 284 -86 (1964) ). “H. F. Hunter vs. Virginia State
Bar ex ret 3rd District Committee 2013 WL 749494
While the speech herein that is the subject to this instant disciplinary complaint is not
commercial, but a garden variety citizen complaint by a citizen to colleagues, friends, law
enforcement etc., the burden placed on the ARDC is ‘clear and convincing5 •
The State can restrict commercial speech under very limited circumstances and
5 There is no authority in American Law whatsoever (except the findings of this particular ARDC hearing panel that allows the ARDC or government to regulate any statement or communication that a citizen including an attorney may have with another individual citizen.
51Page
“only upon a showing that the restriction directly and materially advances a
substantial state interest in a manner no more extensive than necessary to serve that
interest. See, e.g., Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public Servo Comm’n oIN.Y.,
447 U.S. 557, 564, 566,100 S.Ct. 2343,2350,2351,65 L.Ed.2d 341. The State’s
burden is not slight: It must demonstrate that the harms it recites are real and that
its restrictions will in fact alleviate them to a material degree. See, e.g., Edenfield v.
Fane, 507 U.S. 761, 771, 113 S.Ct. 1792, 1800, 123 L.Ed.2d 543. ****” Ibanez v.
Florida Dep’t of Bus. & Profl Regulation, Bd. of Accountancy, 512 U.S. 136, 114 S. Ct.
2084,2085, 129 L. Ed. 2d 118 (1994)
Statement of Facts
There are two phases to this case, the underlying Sykes case, and the matters that are
before the ARDC. On June 9, 2009, Mary Sykes under oath filed a complaint in the Circuit
Court as 09 OP 2886. Therein she alleged upon oath:
“My daughter is trying to prevent me from changing my will (2005) where I didn’t
realize that I had given her my entire home after death and power of attorney over
my property and medical. She lied to me and refused to let me see the original
papers which she took from my files. Carolyn is trying to get my doctor to say I’m
totally or partially incapable of making personal and financial decisions. When I
ask her for my will she said Gloria will see the will when I’m dead. I fear she will
drag me to doctor and get it signed, sell my home (see attached medical papers)
everything should be 50/50 between my daughters. Carolyn continues to file
complaints against Gloria saying she’s abusing me. My daughter Gloria lives with
me and helps me every day. My biggest fear Carolyn will take me out of my home.”
Carolyn countered by filing on July 17,2009 a Petition to have Mary Sykes Declared
Incompetent. This case was assigned the number 2009 P 4585. The Petition for order of
protection was consolidated with the incompetency Petition and never heard. ROP 756 Dr.
Patel on June 18, 2009 (exhibit A2 in Appellate Court of Illinois case 11-0001), who was Ms. Sykes’ treating physician, stated:
“In her current state I am unable to equivocally say weather (sic) she is competent
or not.,,7
6 ROP refers to the matters before the Hearing Panel on Sept 6, 2012
7 On June 5, 2009 Dr. Patel (A3) stated ” What I have notices with Mrs. Sykes is that she does talk rationally and she does make “sense” when she is talking about any topic”
61Page
Illinois has a comprehensive legislative program for protecting the interests of Senior citizens such as Mary Sykes. (See 755 ILCS 5/11a – 3,8, 10, 17, and 18.) Replete in the statutory mandate are words such as:
“(b) Guardianship shall be utilized only as is necessary to promote the wellbeing
of the disabled person, to protect him from neglect, exploitation, or
abuse and the encourage development of his maximum self-reliance and
independence. Guardianship shall be ordered only to the extent necessitated
by the individuals’ actual mental, physical and adaptive limitations. 755
ILCS 5/11a – 3(b)
” Decisions made by a guardian on behalf of a ward may be made by
conforming as closely as possible what the ward, if competent, would have
done***” (5-11a – 17)”
“On December 10,2009 and upon the agreement and consent of*** Farenga and Stem” the court “appointed *** Toerpe (without obtaining jurisdiction as required by 5/11a -10) due to lack of prior 14 days notice to close relatives to serve as plenary guardian of and for the person and estate of ****” Mary Sykes.”s Sykes appeared personally twice and voiced objection to the guardianship appointment on both occasions. (See November 8 filing of case of MGS v. Toerpe 11 CV 7934 – United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.) This pleading avers upon the oath of three citizens of the State of Illinois that:
“21. Since being adjudicated disabled and placed under guardianship and in the
physical care, custody and control of the defendant Toerpe, Plaintiff (sic Mary
Sykes) has experienced five (5) or more admission to the emergency room of local
hospitals, she has/had lost considerable and substantial body weight resulting from
about 14 days of unattended and untreated issues with a swallowing problem.
Plaintiff (Mary Sykes) receives no treatment or therapies for the medical conditions
of her disability.”
{The verified complaint filed by three citizens in Federal Court is important in that it reiterates that the mistreatment of Mary Sykes occurred in court proceedings, proceeding without 8 (Par 13 verified complaint in deposition package filed by Administrator with the evidence deposition of Judge Connors)
71Page
jurisdiction in which the statutory protections including the Jurisdictional requirements were ignored.} The Hearing Panel in its report connotes that the prior 14 day notice required to be provided to the ‘close relatives’ of an alleged disabled person to afford the Court was never provided to the “close relatives,”9
The presiding Judge in the Sykes case when confronted concerning the lack of service of
the petition and notification and the resultant lack of jurisdiction on re-direct examination by the ARDC attorney stated at page 90 of her deposition:
Q. (By ARDC attorney Black) 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 brothers and sisters
and 300 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 again. We would come to the 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.lo
9 The hearing panel in derogation of the interpretation of the jurisdictional requirement by the Appellate Court of Illinois and the Supreme Court of Illinois (see Prefatory statement) inappropriately without any evidence being presented by the Administrator claims that the close relatives (including those not disclosed in the 11a – 8 Petition had knowledge of the hearing. The Court record discloses no affidavits, return of service, or any writing that
directly or indirectly suggests that Gloria Sykes, or either of Mary Sykes’ two siblings had even a causal notification, much less 14 days prior notice. In affidavits filed with the ARDC Gloria Sykes and both siblings of Mary Sykes deny receiving the notice.
10 This quote is evidence submitted by the Administrator and binds him. It should be noted that no inquiry has been made by either the Court’s Commission or the ARDC. The words “we would come to the same result” are very
81Page
So I wish I had it in front of me, but I don’t recall specifically if the sisters came in
and submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the court or if they were notified
formally at one time.” (page 90 Evidence Deposition of Judge Connors)
Equally instructive is the Transcript of proceedings of August 31, 2009 which revealed
(TR 44,45,46,47) the Judge engaging in the following repartee with the attorney for the
petitioner:
“**** Is there going to be a CCP 211 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.”
Matters involving Respondent.
The respondent at no time prior to April 2010 was involved directly or indirectly in the
Sykes case. (See report of hearing board pages 3 – 6.) Respondent was engaged by friends of Mary Sykes, several relatives of Mary Sykes and concerned neighbors to investigate whether or not Mary Sykes was a victim of elder abuse/financial exploitation. Thus, as part of respondent’s FRCP 11 investigation on April 22, 2010 Respondent wrote to Dr. Patel a letter that stated as follows:
“I have been contacted to represent the interests of Mary Sykes. I am in receipt of
the following documents *****. There seems to be a definite conflict between
exhibits 1, 2, and 3.
After I appear for Mary Sykes I will want all your record in connection with Mrs.
Sykes and I want to have Mrs. Sykes examined independently at the University of
Chicago to determine if she is indeed a disabled person. ****” ROP 610, 611
Copies of the inquiry letter were sent to Adam Stem, Cynthia Farenga, and Peter Schmiedel.
[There was no testimony by Dr. Patel that he was intimidated or in any way misled by this letter or any o/the attachments, if any. There is testimony ROP 225 that the Administrator had exparte communications with Dr. Patel and sent him various documents ROP 229 – Dr. Patel’s testimony was cut short when Dr. Patel was asked “Q. Sir did you receive a facsimile that was troubling and indicative of an admission of prejudging of the matter in issue or put more bluntly -‘do not trouble me with the facts – I have made up my mind. ‘
91Pagc
sent to you this week by me enclosing documents? And he answered “I don’t think I have
anything else here that was faxed to me.” 11]
After threats communicated over the telephone by GAL Stem and Attorney Schmiedel
(overheard by respondent’s wife) were ineffective to stop respondent’s investigation of the facts of the Sykes case, Stem, Farenga, and Schmiedel by a writing authored by Stem, filed a Rule 137 Motion for Sanctions in the Probate Division. This ploy was similarly unsuccessful in thwarting respondent’s inquiry. Thus, appearing before Connors with full knowledge that the Court had no jurisdiction over respondent, ROP 280, 281,282, and no subject matter jurisdiction due to the failure to serve the Sodini notices either in oral or written form, the Judge entered a sanction. [When almost a year later the Court assessed a sanction of approximately $5000.00, a successful appeal was filed as case 11-000 1 in the Appellate Court of Illinois.] 12
The successful vacation of the sanction triggered renewed complaints to the ARDC by
Stem, Farenga, and Schmediel and this prosecution by the ARDC. Respondent during discovery requested information as to what ‘false statements’ were made. The hearing officer denied him the right to file interrogatories. However, in Requests to Admit the Administrator represented that he had no information concerning the truth or falsity of any statement that the respondent made (see Responses to Request to Admit). At the hearing the Administrator did not call Gloria Sykes as a witness even though she presented an affidavit based upon her actual knowledge II The Administrator took an evidence deposition of Judge Connors, and the respondent was able to attend and participate; however, as to Dr. Patel rather than taking a discovery deposition an unusual procedure was taken. The record of these proceedings indicates some usual behavior taken directed at Gloria as well. Historically lawyers are very careful to not communicate with potential witnesses without participation by the opponent since by clear light of hindsight a claim of witness tampering is credible. This is mentioned because of the liberal attitude that was applied to the Administrator and the fact that when respondent’s attorney Mr. Hyman because of a death in the family requested consideration it was denied. The chairman also ROP 246 had problems with Attorney JoAnne Denison being in the Courtroom. Ms. Denison was taking notes on her computer.
12 ROP 6101611 Respondent denied personally sending a copy of the proposed appearance to Dr. Patel. It is not referred to in the letter. A copy was sent to the attorneys, i.e. Farenga, Stem, Schmiedel. Subsequently a petition to file was presented to the Court and denied. The transcript of proceedings of April 22, 2010 has the Court asking
respondent if he sent the proposed appearance to Dr. Patel and Ms. Farenga answering “yes.” This however is all irrelevant as there is no evidence that Dr. Patel was affected by these communications.
10 I Page
(exhibit L) of the relevant facts. Ms. Sykes in her affidavit related that at no time did she consent to her mother being declared incompetent (par 4), that her sister drilled the safety deposit box in the Ms. Sykes’ and her mother’s name and removed
“Jewelry, cash, valuable papers and Gold and Silver coins. The gold coins were
derived from my father’s collection, and my mother’s and my inheritance from
Albert Biddy. It is my estimate that today with the rising price of gold the value of
the items in the box could exceed a million dollars. (In open Court before Judge
Connors my Aunt Yolanda informed the Court of her knowledge of the gold coins
even describing the container in which they were kept.),,13
Ms. Sykes informed the ARDC that her mother, in January/February 2012, Ms. Sykes sought an attorney for both of them.
“She informed me that she had secreted cash in her mattress. My sister who has
admitted monitoring the telephone calls came shortly thereafter and removed the
mattress and the cash. **** Mr. Stern has been consistent in denying that my
mother is requesting an attorney. I believe that he falsely represents to the Court
my mother’s wishes. I have reported the inventoried assets and the exploitation to both guardian ad litem. Neither was interested and neither reported these matters to law
enforcement. ”
“9. I am a close relative of my mother, as are my two aunts **** neither I nor
either of my aunts was afforded any notice of such (sic incompetency) hearing.
When I made inquiry of Mr. Stern he informed me that indeed no hearing at any
time occurred. He then falsely stated that I, he, Ms. Farenga and my sister had
agreed that Mother should be adjudicated incompetent. I made no such agreement.
****,,14
The administrator did not call as a witness either of Mary’s siblings or present a witness who could or would testify to actually personally serving the prior 14 days notices required by 735 ILCS 5111a – 10. (Both siblings have filed with the ARDC affidavits that they were not served.).
13 Respondent at ROP 630 stated:
“My knowledge of the gold coins, at this point my knowledge of the gold coins is based upon four things:
What Mary told me, What she showed me. What Yolanda Bakken told, and the fact except for the guardian ad litem, Carolyn has not denied the existence of the gold coins”
Gloria Sykes’ affidavit is also of record and undenied.
14 In case 09 P 4585 page 10 transcript 11129110 Mr. Schmiedel affirms that there was no hearing as to Mary Sykes’ competency. There was hearing on a “care plan” (line 12). The Record in Sykes fails to demonstrate jurisdiction was ever obtained by the Circuit Court.
lllPage The administrator did call the complaining witness, GAL Farenga, who admitted ROP 578 that she had no personal knowledge of the averment. ROP 580. Ms. Farenga’s motivation is disclosed at ROP 585 lines 3 – 6. (A preemptive strike, to prevent intervention by law enforcement.) 15
The respondent outraged by the attempts at intimidation, communicated with friends,
family, colleagues, and law-enforcement concerning what patently appears to him (and others) to be the abuse and exploitation of Mary Sykes by persons appointed by a Court lacking jurisdiction. Some of the communications were by mail and others were bye-mail. It appears the complaining witnesses obtained much of the material that was presented to the panel from the writings of third persons ROP 655/656/657 et seq. and blanketly attributed the material to respondent. Respondent did write a letter to the Attorney General of the United States and certain elected officials concerning the Mary Sykes case.RO:P 663/ 664. 16 The words and phrases communicated by the respondent were true and accurate and verified by the memorialization in writing of the personal knowledge of Gloria Sykes, Scott Evans and others in the form of affidavits made part of the pleadings herein and furnished to the Administrator by the affiants. The affiants and persons filing complaints with the ARDC against Stem, Farenga, and Schmiedel based upon their personal observations were similarly not called as witnesses by the
Administrator. The Administrator however called a law enforcement officer, ROP 154-179, to address the respondent’s communications with law enforcement. The law enforcement officer 15 The Administrator used the tactic of saying that they were going to call Attorney. Denison as a witness to keep her out of the Courtroom. Attorney Denison was taking copious notes (blogging). By keeping Ms. Denison out of the Courtroom Administrator’s witness could speak concerning her protected activities 74 USCA 230 in a derogatory
manner, being free from further comment. ROP 601 – 605. Ms. Denison was never called as a witness.
16 ROP 275. In September 2012 (roughly 3 years) GAL Stern had not filed a ‘fee petition.’ GAL’s are usually finished when the guardian is appointed (Judge Connor’s evidence deposition) yet Stern and Farenga stay on for three years without fees!
121 Page
never requested Respondent cease or filed any charges. The Administrator also referred to communications with other law enforcement personnel. ROP678 17
The Hearing Panel made an adverse ruling against the respondent and this Petition seeks
the Review Panel’s reversal.
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.18
*****”
“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. 9 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 confidentially2o. 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.
17 As the First Amendment specifically prohibits infringement on the right to communicate with government and in particular law enforcement the attempted censorship of a citizen is in the nature of an impeachable offense. No laws were violated by respondent and no request was made by law enforcement to limit or deter the communication,
except by the Administrator who should have been investigating the charges brought by citizens such as Gloria Sykes and other concerning Stem and Farenga.
18 With dozens of citizen complaints filed against Farenga, Stem, and Schmiedel including a complaints by persons involved such as Gloria Sykes, Kathy Bakken, et al and concrete evidence of non-compliance with the Sodini jurisdictional notice requirements the lack of an investigation by the ARDC of the aforesaid Farenga, Stem, and
Schmiedel is contrary to the mission statement.
19 Educating lawyers that they should not complain concerning the non-inventory of a million dollars in valuables removed by the plenary guardian is reprehensible.
20The inquiry of the ARDC lawyer as to whether the respondent was repentant for reporting to law enforcement the isolation of Mary Sykes from her siblings and younger child as well as the failure of the guardian to inventory substantial assets removed from the safety deposit box of the senior appears to balance the scales against the public and the respondent. It also is patently unfair.
13IPage
“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.”
1.
THE PROCEEDINGS HEREIN BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD
WERE PATENTLY UNFAIR AND INAPPROPRIATE
1) The respondent was entitled to adjudication as to whether or not the
complaint herein met the pleading standards21
a. It is axiomatic that a respondent in such a proceeding as this is entitled to
have specific allegations made as to what, if anything, he did was in violation of some
ethical criterion. Simply put, he is entitled to be informed of all the facts – not
conclusions- upon which the charges are brought. No matter how the facts and
pleadings are tortured the respondent’s 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 was 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 that any wrongful conduct was done by the
respondent. Only the Administrator and the panel drew the conclusion that Dr. Patel or
anyone else was misled by the letter. Dr. Patel did not testify that he was misled. As the
standard is ‘clear and convincing evidence’ any adverse finding as to Count 1 has to be
reversed. Without Dr. Patel’s testimony that he was misled there is no evidence as to the
conclusion. The failure of Dr. Patel to testify that he was misled in a ‘fair arena’ should
21 The ARDe has been unable or unwilling to specify what, if any, statements made by Ditkowsky that were false, however, at ROP 309 – 314 the Panel sustained objections based upon the respondent’s not knowing what false statement was being referenced.
141 Page
have been fatal. The circumstances under which Dr. Patel testified – a telephone
interview in which the Court’s representative was not consistently present – was a
travesty, recognized even by the ARDC who then utilized the defense’s time to present
his case to bring him into court the next day.
b. Count 2 suggests that the respondent does not have the right to complain
concerning:
1. The undisputed assertion that the Court lacked jurisdiction. There is no
evidence presented that section 11 a-I Of (Sodini) was followed. The panel
does not find that there was service; the claim of service is repudiated by the
personal knowledge affidavits of Gloria Sykes and in the affidavits furnished
by the two siblings in the Denison ARDC case.22
11. 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 that Mary Sykes requested of Gloria Sykes
that she find me to represent her. The ability of a person to select her own
attorney is included in the Statute! The affidavit points out that Farenga,
Stem, Schmiedel and Toerpe had kept Mary isolated from her younger
daughter and two siblings. (Isolation of a senior citizen is abuse, per se, and
contrary to 11 a – 3.) It is of record in the communications that Ms. Kathy
22 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 in Sykes reveals that on Day One 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 received the
knowledge that the panel claims that they had. It is significant that neither sibling was called to testify as to receiving the Sodini notice. Assuming that this is one of the undisclosed claimed untrue and reckless statements of the respondent there is no evidence upon which the Panel could hold that the statement is either untrue or reckless.
151 Page
Bakken in response to a denial by Ms. Farenga pointed out to Farenga that
Ms. Toerpe had admitted neglect23 and as a result Mary lost 10% of her body
weight. The Administrator did not call Ms. Bakken as a witness and did not
offer in evidence hospital records contrary to the assertion24
111. 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.
(See Gloria Sykes affidavit.) The panel acknowledges that Ms. Farenga
testified that neither she nor Adam Stem was present when the ‘gold coins’
were removed from the safety deposit bOX.25 It is respectfully suggested that
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. An owner of the safety deposit box filed an affidavit herein to
make the claim. It is significant that neither Carolyn Toerpe nor Gloria Sykes
were called as a witness. Assuming that this is one of the undisclosed claimed
untrue and reckless statements of the respondent there is no evidence upon
which the Panel could hold that the statement is either untrue or reckless.
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 23 The fact that there are two guardians 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.
24 Assuming that this is one of the undisclosed claimed untrue and reckless statements of the respondent there is no evidence upon which the Panel could hold that the statement is either untrue or reckless
25 The panel concludes that it was unjustified for counsel to complain. Ms. Yolanda 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. Yolanda.
Bakken by the Administrator.
161 P age
Administrator was required to produce evidence to substantiate each element of his claim. The statute enacted by the legislature is very specific26
. It required actual NOTIFICATION to be provided to Gloria Sykes and Mary Sykes’ siblings. The panel suggests without any credible evidence being provided that Mary’s siblings had knowledge of something. 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 be specific. A naked denial is not evidence, except as to CY A. The statement in the panel’s report that the siblings had knowledge is without basis.
a. Without compliance with 11a – 10 (the Sodini notice) the Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction and the actions of the Circuit Court are void. There is not a scintilla of evidence about what, if anything, Gloria Sykes and her two aunts had knowledge concerning. Mr. Schmiedel and Judge Connors hint that it is a ‘care plan,’ but no one testified and the Court Record in Sykes makes it clear that there is no documentation or evidence to support any claim to Jurisdiction by the Circuit Court of Cook County. There is however evidence in the form of affidavits and responses to discovery by the Administrator that no
prior notice was provided.
b. In discovery (see Appendix attached) the Administrator refused to disclose
what if any statements that respondent had made were untrue and admitted to
having no evidence as to critical factual scenarios. Assuming that this one or
26 ROP 526/526 the ARDC attorney asks Farenga the ‘conclusion’ “are you aware of any intimidation on the part of Adam Stern or the judges as it relates to the Sykes case?” Well aware of the obvious attempt at intimidation by the Rule 137 motion that she, Stern, and Schmiedel brought against respondent knowing that respondent had never
filed anything in the case, had never even been an observer, and had never filed an appearance, Farenga denied any intimidation. ROP 526. This wrongful pattern is demonstrated throughout the proceeding.
171Pagc
more of the statements is one or more of the undisclosed claimed untrue and
reckless statements of the respondent there is no evidence upon which the Panel
could hold that the statement is either untrue or reckless.
c. The Administrator and the complaining witnesses searched 3rd party
sources to garner communications by the respondent with law enforcement,
private parties, and web sources in the inappropriate quest to stop the respondent
from discussing. AT ROP 535 ARDC attorney Ms. Black explains
“This article [sic from a website called “Stopguardianabuse]” bears
statements are similar statements that were made by Kenneth
Ditkowsky in other e-mails and what not. To the extent that this blog
has at the bottom his name and his web site, we believe there’s enough
similarities between this blog and to her documents that are in
evidence to indicate that this document was in fact authored by
Ditkowsky, Mr. Ditkowsky.” ROP 535
No evidence was ever presented that respondent even had a web-site or what it, if
anything it contained. The term referred to is the tentative name of the Book that
Gloria Sykes is believed to be working on. It is respectfully submitted that the
ARDC lacks jurisdiction to regulate respondent’s speech to his friends, neighbors,
clients, and more importantly lacks jurisdiction to regulate the speech of his
friends, neighbors, clients and Gloria Sykes. ROP 537. See Also 47 USCA 230.
3) That Administrator and panel acted in a discriminatory manner toward the
respondent, but ignored the actions of the two guardians ad litem and the attorney for the
plenary guardian.27 The mission statement of the ARDC has the words: “promote and protect the integrity of the legal profession.” As the panel hinted, Illinois has been embarrassed by 15
27 The recent case (May 7, 2013) of National Association of Manufacturers vs. NLRB 2013 WL 1876234 DC circuit makes it very clear that government including Administrative Agencies, such as the NLRB and the ARDC do not have the jurisdiction (power) to regulate speech. This DC Circuit case is suggested by respondent as authority
for the dismissal of this instant proceeding on Jurisdictional grounds.
181 Page judges and a number of attorneys going to jail in the Greylord scandal. The respondent urges this review panel to read the clear words of755 ILCS 5/11a – 10(f) and then examine Judge Connor’s deposition and recall that she has been administrating the act for almost decade (TR 8).
Judges and lawyers are 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. To reiterate because it is so important, on page 90 of her evidence deposition Judge Connors responded 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 brothers and sisters
and 300 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 again. We would come to the same result. (sic emphasis mine) 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 sisters came in
and submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the court or if they were notified
formally at one time.”
The foregoing testimony should not give comfort to the hearing panel and their
assumption that the siblings (and/or Gloria Sykes) had the 14 days prior notice required by the 191 Page statute. This jurisdiction is the lodestone event in this ARDC prosecution of the respondent, serious error has occurred herein.28 The statements by the presiding Judge are damning and contrary to the basic tenets of American Jurisprudence. The Key phrases from the Judge’s testimony found on pages 90 and 91 of her deposition are reiterated herein and examined, to wit:
1. “As the Court directs29
” Section 1 Of is jurisdictional – there is no discretion.
Either the statute is complied with or there is no jurisdiction. Sodini makes that fact
abundantly clear. It is extremely corrupt and inappropriate for a judge to administer the
law and not know the cases and the statutes that 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 pursuant to
Sodini requires not eventually their finding out about the loss of their sister’s liberty and
property rights! The statute requires that 14 days prior notice be afforded. This is a due
process matter. Just knowing ex-post facto is unacceptable and our Supreme Court has
as stated supra made pointed affirmation of this fact. The mission of the ARDC is to
promote and protect the integrity of the legal profession and the public. It is respectfully
suggested that the integrity of the legal profession and the public is not being promoted
when jurisdiction is so cavalierly treated. In fact Canon 8.4 is being violated by this
prosecution.
28 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 legislative program was designed to protect the senior citizen. The stated purpose of the statutory
enactment was not to provide ‘income’ to attorneys 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 that he/she needed help, not to be a ‘death sentence’ and a total loss ofliberty. (See II a -3, lla – 17 and 11 a
– 18.) To protect the senior it is mandatory that the petition contain certain disclosures (see Iia – 8). The petition filed on behalf of Carolyn Toerpe does not accurately make the disclosures; 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 on the applicant to be appointed guardian is procrustean requiring proof of incompetency by clear and convincing evidence. 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 respondent) is not consistent with what is required by Law.
29 We have taken the interesting words and phrases and sent them out in bold. Then we have examined each.
20 I Page
3. “I assumed that the appropriate people were notified when 1 made the
appointment as to her adjudication.” The first order of business for a properly
functioning Court is to determine jurisdiction. This is an affirmative act – not an
assumption. The standard for the determination and the appointment of a guardian for an
alleged disabled person is “clear and convincing.” The hearing panel points out in their
decision that there was no testimony taken by the court as to Mary’s competency, thus the
basic criterion of Article 1 of the Illinois Constitution is admitted as not being applicable
to Mary Sykes. This is intolerable and a question has to be asked – why are Cynthia
Farenga, Adam Stern, Peter Schmeidel, et al not being investigated by the ARDC?
4. “If there is a motion that comes forward relative to someone who should be
included and, against, that’s the court’s decision 1 think as the Court says should be
notified, 1 could vacate my finding, have the sisters notified, go through the who
thing against. We would come to same result” The words “we could come to same
result” are very troubling. These words imply that there is a pre-determined result and
that the judicial witness is saying that the standard in these incompetency proceedings is
not “clear and convincing, but do not bother me with the facts as I have made up my
mind. The quoted testimony contained in the evidence deposition of Judge Connors was the evidence offered by the Administrator as his re-direct in the deposition along with another question that it is respectfully suggested illustrates the ‘bias’ that exists in this prosecution.
Q. Had the sisters been present during the adjudication would that have been
sufficient notice for you?
A. Yes.
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). It is respectfully suggested that Sodini and Steinfeld both unequivocally reject the Judge’s admission. Trial by ambush is not condoned in Illinois. The prior 14 days notice is not resolved by luring a required person to Court for a hearing on another subject other than the incompetency of the alleged disabled person.30 It is pure bias on 3. The statute states:
+ l1a-10. Procedures preliminary to hearing.
(a) Upon the filing of a petition pursuant to Silctlon l1a-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 experliece. to work with or advocate for the developmentally disabled. mentally III. physically disabled. the
211 Page
the part of the Administrator and the hearing panel to ignore the Constitutional and jurisdictional protections of the Statute. It is corruption to pervert a ‘due process’ and/or jurisdictional protection so as to attempt to claim that a lawyer has not told the truth and has made a reckless statement concerning jurisdiction of the Court in the Sykes case.
elderly, or persons disabled because of mental deterioration, dependlnq on the type of dlsabUlty that Is alleqed In the petition. The court may allow the quardlan ad litem reasonable compensation. The quardlan ad litem may consult with a person who by tralnlnq or experience Is qualified to work with persons with a developmental dlsabUlty, persons with mental Illness, or physically disabled persons, or persons disabled because of mental deterioration, depenl1fnq on the type of disability that Is alllqed. The quardlan ad litem shall personally observe the respondent prior to the hearlnq and shall Inform him orally and In wrltlnq of the contents of the petition and of his rlqhts under Section l1a-l1. The guardian ad litem shall also attempt to elicit the respondent’s position concerning the adludlcatlon of dlsabUlty. 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. Notwlthstandlnq any provision In the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Confidentiality Act or any other law, a quardlan ad litem shall have the rlqht to Inspect and copy any medical or mental health record of the respondent which the quardlan ad litem deems necessary, provided that the Information so disclosed shall not be utUlzed for any other purpose nor be redlsclosed except In connection with the proceedlnqs. At or before the hearlnq, the quardlan ad litem shall file a written report detaUlnq 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 quardlan ad litem or other professionals with whom the quardlan ad litem consulted concernlnq the appropriateness of quardlanshlp, and any other material Issue discovered by the quardlan ad litem. The guardian ad litem shall appear at the hearing and testify as to any Issues presented In his or her report.
(bl The court (ll may appoint counsel for the respondent, If the court finds that the Interests of the respondent wfff be best served by the appointment, and (2l 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 hearlnq or by any written or oral request communicated to the court prior to the hearlnq. The summons shall Inform the respondent of this rlqht to obtain appointed counsel. The court may allow counsel for the respondent reasonable compensation.
(cllf the respondent Is unable to pay the fee of the quardlan 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.’ where the public quardlan Is the
petitioner, consistent with Section 13-5 of the Probate Act of 1975, where an elder abuse provider aqency Is the petitioner, pursuant to Section 9 of the Elder Abuse and Neqlect 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 quardlan ad litem or leqal fees shall be assessed aqalnst the Office of
State Guardian, the public quardlan, the elder abuse provider aqency, or the Department of Human Services Office of Inspector General. (dl The hearing may be held at such convenient place as the court directs, Including at a facUlty 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 hearlnq. The summons shall be printed In larqe, bold type and shall Include the followlnq notice:
NOTICE OF RIGHTS OF RESPONDENT
You have been named as a respondent In a guardianship petition askinq that you be declared a disabled person. If the court grants the petftfon, a quardlan will be appointed for you. A copy of the quardlanshlp petition Is attached for your convenience.
The date and time of the hearinq are:
The place where the hearinq will occur Is:
The Judqe’s name and phone number Is:
If a quardian Is appointed for you, the quardian may be qiven the riqht 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 quardlan may also be qlven the rlqht to control and manaqe your money and other property, Includlnq your home, If you own one. You may lose the rlqht to make these decisions for yourself.
You have the following legal rights:
(l) 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 aqe or over who Is not a party to the action.
(fl Notice of the time and place of the hearing shall be given by the petitioner by mall 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 S T CH 755 § 5/11a-1O (emphasis mine) 221 P age
The Administrator failed to present the Common Law Record in the Sykes case and any
evidence of any ‘filed’ affidavits of service, returns of service etc. This deficiency was
inappropriately rationalized by the hearing panel with the ‘naked’ statement that the two siblings knew of the proceedings! Neither sibling nor Gloria Sykes was called as a witness so the Hearing panel would have no way of knowing what, if anything, the persons entitled to the Sodini notice knew or did not know. Clairvoyance is not recognized as competent evidence even when presented by “judicial officials” Cynthia Farenga, Adam Stern or the
Administrator. 31 The irregularities that are disclosed by the Record in the Sykes matter are legend and too numerous to discuss herein even though inappropriately claimed by the Administrator to be ‘lies’ made recklessly by the respondent. The common law record, even though ignored by the Administrator and the hearing panel refutes any suggestion of inaccuracy in any of the emails or other communications made by the respondent pursuant to his First Amendment Rights.
This Sykes transcript record of August 31, 2009 (more than 30 days after the filing of the
petition) revealed (TR 44,45,46,47) that the Judge engaging in the following repartee with the attorney for the petitioner:
“**** Is there going to be a CCP 211 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.”
31 An examination of the record herein reveals that the legislative plan mandated by the legislature to protect Mary Sykes was ignored with impunity. For instance, the testimony of Ms. Farenga is replete with admissions of impropriety. Section 511la – 3 makes it venue and purpose clear. At ROP 553 Mr. Hyman asks Ms. Farenga:
Q *** “Did you report to the Court that petition that was filed where it claimed that Mary Sykes was living  on Avondale was no longer correct?”
“A. I did not need to report that to the Court. The Court knew that she was living in Naperville because that’s why the Court appointed Mr. Stern on the day I was absent.” ROP 553 ***” I did not file a document.”
231 Page
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 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 seniors take that attitude. *****
4) The Administrator in these proceedings was not required to either specify
what 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 upon the total lack of proof that 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, if any, the Administrator claimed to be untrue. There was no such disclosure. The Panel chairman ruled that the Respondent was not entitled to serve interrogatories seeking to ascertain this information. In 241 Page    answers to Request to Admit the Administrator was allowed by the Panel to be evasive and not detail this information; however, the Panel during the hearing sustained an objection to Respondent’s questions because the claimed statement could not be detailed. Similarly the Panel in its decision does not detail what, if any statements that the respondent allegedly uttered were untrue. It is respectfully submitted that if there were any untrue statement made, the Administrator had to plead and prove each statement. In failing to do so, the Administrator did not meet his burden of proof. The panel in not insisting on this criterion was very unfair. Disingenuously the sanction imposed on respondent is far in excess of that imposed against an attorney who ‘steals’ his clients’ money and it is patently unreasonable. The sanction, imposed in direct violation of the First Amendment and in derogation of the prohibitions decreed by the Supreme Court of the United States drives home the public distrust of the 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 rights and civil rights, he is to be struck down. The United States of America in its prosecution of Greylord Judges and lawyers made very clear to the legal profession and in particular the regulators of the judicial profession that such is unacceptable. This lesson was not learned.
The panel and the Administrator cannot point to a single document in the Common Law
Record to substantiate that 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
251 P age
petition on any of the three ladies 14 days prior to the hearing.32 At the risk of being redundant
it must be pointed out that this failure of proof vitiates any suggestion that Respondent did
anything wrong. It is not unlawful or wrong for a citizen (including an attorney) the fully
exercise his First Amendment Rights.
The call for an investigation and the appeals to law enforcement are protected
activities. The attempt to prevent the full exercise of First Amendment Rights is Ultra vires (for
the ARDC) unconscionable, totally unethical, an impeachable offense and exemplifies an
attempt at denying respondent his ‘civil rights’ under color of statute 42 USCA 1983, or worse.
As an example, it should be noted that panel’s statement of facts admits that the ‘gold coins’
were not inventoried. Ms. Farenga’s testimony admits that she and Stem had no knowledge as to
what was taken from the safety deposit box and thus, the Administrator did not provide even a
scintilla of evidence (much less clear and convincing evidence) that the following assertion was
untrue: “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 Yolanda Bakken to testify,
but chose not to do so. Therefore, it is contrary to the mission of the ARDC to prevent
respondent from calling for an investigation of why the Gold coins referred to by Ms. Sykes and
Ms. Bakken were not inventoried.
5) Torture of the Canons of Ethics to obviate the First Amendment to the
United States Constitution is unethical and itself a serious violation of the Canons.
The torture of the Canons of Ethics to silence a targeted attorney who complains as to
particular subject matter is illustrated by this panel’s report. How can the Canons of Ethics be
32 It is frustrating to have to address a will of the wisp. Lack of disclosure by the Administrator 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/was frivolous as well as per se unethical and wrong ..
261 P age
violated by the cry of 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 even to an attorney’s
rights to petition the government.
As indicated infra, the Supreme Court of the United States’ judgments are the Law ofthe
Land and apply not only to hypothetical people, but the Administrator and the ARDC. This
particular decision and its disrespect for the First Amendment is egregious and a ‘gross’ action
placing the entire legal system into disrepute. The question has to be asked how seasoned
licensed attorneys, being paid with tax-payer money, are not cognizant of the very Constitutional
principles that pre-teens are required to know as a condition precedent to their entry into High
School!33 see Horrace Frazier Hunter v. Virginia State Bar EX REL 3rd District
Committee 2013 WL 749494.
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!
33 The United States Supreme Court cases of Aschcroft v American Civil Liberties
Union 535 US 564, Brown v 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.
271 P age
The Admission of Ms. Farenga at ROP 567 that she did not know if the Probate Court had
jurisdiction over respondent or not is ‘chilling.’
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, and the Administrator’s 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, Yolanda Bakken, Kathy Bakken, Scott Evans,
and Mary Sykes is indicative of ‘corruption!’ These are the people who should have been
interviewed and whose testimony would be based upon knowledge rather than preordained
conclusions or self interest.
The key fact that must be focused upon is that the Administrator’s failure to provide a
speck of evidence that Gloria Sykes, and Mary’s two siblings were given the required 14 days
prior notice. The failure of the Administrator to tender as a witness a person who could testify
that he/she served prior to the required hearing on Mary Sykes’ competency the Sodini notices is
very suspicious. Indeed, 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 instead is 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 guardians ad litem appointed in a 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. Naked claims that the two
siblings and Gloria Sykes had knowledge do not vest the Court with jurisdiction. As the
281 P age
Supreme Court has stated – the mandatory statutory procedure must be followed. Thus, any
claim concerning jurisdiction or the ultra vires acts of the ‘judicial official’ is not reckless. The
‘cover up’ of this deficiency however is deplorable and worthy of the most severe consequences.
7) 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.
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. The instant respondent has virtually no pecuniary interest in the Sykes case. [ The
panel recognizes his pecuniary interest in the Sykes case was only $1,000, for the endeavor of
investigating the facts of the case. It therefore is readily apparent that the respondent has no
pecuniary interest in the Sykes case or any of the similar cases]
Thus, even under the worst case scenario the averments of misconduct by the respondent
made by the Administrator are per se meritless as they are all protected by the First Amendment.
The claimed statements are all content based and supported. Pursuant to the 14th Amendment
and Article 1 of the Illinois Constitution there is no such thing as an attorney making a content
based non-commercial statement for an improper purpose in America. The imposition of a four
year suspension for such a statement is a per se denial of equal protection. Indeed, even untrue
content based statement (whatever they might have been) are still protected by the First
Amendment. There has been no delegation to the ARDC or any governmental agency to
monitor and determine what statements are true and accurate.
291 P age
The United States Constitution, the ‘mission statement’ of the ARDC and the Public
policy of the State of Illinois (735 ILCS 110/5 are the required credo to the Administration and
the ARDC. The disrespect exhibited by the Administrator for the Constitution of the United
States of America in prosecuting this case is unparalleled. The subterfuge of attempting to claim
that complaints of violations of civil rights uttered amongst citizens and communicated to law
enforcement are unethical for a lawyer to participate in does not meet the ‘clear and convincing
standard, but it clearly and convincingly encourages the administration of “justice” as “cover
up!”
Ms. Farenga at ROP 573 admits that she has no knowledge of what if any effect
respondent’s letter had on Dr. Patel. Mr. Stem did not testify to any first-hand knowledge, and
Dr. Patel did not testify that he was misled by the letter and testified that he did not respond, he
just put the letter in the file. Count 1 is thus an illustration as to why The First Amendment
limitations on government are so necessary. It is apparent that the Administrator promulgates
his averments herein in an ultra vires, unethical, unprofessional and improper manner. The
idiopathic source of the Administrator’s assertions is a mystery; however, the ‘hearing panel’s’
decision makes it very clear to all that respondent is being punished for exercising his First
Amendment Right to communicate with his friends, his colleagues, and others.
As a human being respondent is not repentant for ‘standing up’ for the liberty and
property rights of Mary Sykes and persons similarly situated. To do any less would be amoral
and would 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 does not mean that the respondent should and he
30 I P age
will not do so, but vows to continue whether suspended for four years or disbarred to do his
sworn duty as an American and a sworn member of the legal profession.
2.
THE ARDC WAS NEVER DELEGATED THE JURISDICTION TO CENSOR OR
INTERFERE WITH THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF THE RESPONDENT OR
ANY OTHER LEGAL PROFESSIONAL.
Dissent is as American as “Apple Pie.” However the person who makes critical
statements is not welcomed by those persons temporarily in power. A dissenter who is correct in
hislher assessment of the actions of a judicial official or similar person is even less welcomed.
An examination of the evidence deposition of the Judge presiding in the Sykes case discloses a
treasure trove of observations of the miscreant situation that polluted the interest of Justice in the
aforesaid Sykes case. It is fair to state that this proceeding is a repUdiation of the Public Policy
of the State of Illinois. 34
The Jurisdictional criterion disclosed in Sodini was ignored in Sykes. Every fair minded
person is, at this point in time, aware of the said fact. Therefore, why has the Administrator and
34 § 5. Public policy. Pursuant to the fundamental philosophy of the American constitutional form of
government, it is declared to be the public policy of the State of Illinois that the constitutional rights of
citizens and organizations to be involved and participate freely in the process of government must be
encouraged and safeguarded with great diligence. The information, reports, opinions, claims, arguments, and
other expressions provided by citizens are vital to effective law enforcement, the operation of government, the
making of public policy and decisions, and the continuation of representative democracy. The laws, courts,
and other agencies of this State must provide the utmost protection for the free exercise of these rights of
petition, speech, association, and government participation.
Civil actions for money damages have been filed against citizens and organizations of this State as a result of
their valid exercise of their constitutional rights to petition, speak freely, associate freely, and otherwise
participate in and communicate with government. There has been a disturbing increase in lawsuits termed
“Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation” in government or “SLAPPs” as they are popularly called.
The threat of SLAPPs significantly chills and diminishes citizen participation in government, voluntary
public service, and the exercise of these important constitutional rights. This abuse of the judicial process can
and has been used as a means of intimidating, harassing, or punishing citizens and organizations for involving
themselves in public affairs.
It is in the public interest and it is the purpose of this Act to strike a balance between the rights of persons to
file lawsuits for injury and the constitutional rights of persons to petition, speak freely, associate freely, and
otherwise participate in government; to protect and encourage public participation in government to the
maximum extent permitted by law; to establish an efficient process for identification and adjudication of
SLAPPs; and to provide for attorney’s fees and costs to prevailing movants. IL ST CH 735 § 110/5
311 P age
the hearing panel not made inquiry as to 1) why there are two guardians ad litem appointed; 2)
why the GALs have been retained for three years plus; 3) why there was no inventory of all the
assets of which the plenary guardian took possession; 4) why was the admission of the plenary
guardian of neglect of Mary Sykes ignored, 5) why was Mary Sykes isolated from her siblings of
over eight decades as well as her younger daughter and her friends and neighbors of many
decades; 6) why has Gloria Sykes has been treated to harassment of a clearly extra judicial
nature, and 7) why sans jurisdiction was the blatant attempt to intimidate the respondent with a
unfounded sanction motion tolerated.
The Administrator enjoyed the burden of proof (clear and convincing) and the obligation
to prove the respondent a liar by clear and convincing evidence. In his effort the Administrator
chose not to call ‘key witnesses’ such as Mary’s two sisters, her younger daughter and Mr.
Evans who witnessed Mary’s incarceration The panel did not disclose a single statement of the
respondent that was proven false. If the Administrator (ARDC) could prove a single statement
made by the respondent to be false it would be incumbent upon him to do so. THE
ADMINISTRATOR NOT ONLY DID NOT MAKE THE ATTEMPT, he admitted that he
did not know which, if any, statements made were either untrue, reckless or both in his
discovery responses.
Corruption includes more than bribe taking. Justice Connors’ deposition testimony is an
indictment of the serious deficiencies in her Court. The Admission of Farenga that she and Stem
were not present when the safety deposit box suggests that her denials of the non-inventory of
the million dollars in gold coins and other valuables was a reckless and false statement made by
her to impede the protection ofthe assets of Mary Sykes. As the eyes and ears a/the Court both
Stem and Farenga have a duty of disclosure – not ‘cover up’. The admission of Farenga is an
32\ P age
admission of corruption. The conclusions of the persons appointed by a Court lacking
jurisdiction is not sufficient to overcome the criterion of Clear and Convincing. The choice of the
Administrator to not to call a single witness who had personal knowledge of the truth or veracity
Respondent’s undisclosed statements similarly does not overcome the requirement of proving his
allegations by clear and convincing evidence.
It is also noteworthy to point out that Carolyn Toerpe was not called as a witness by
the administrator. She thus did not deny removing anything from the safety deposit box, nor
did she claim to provide an inventory of what she took. Indeed, she did not deny that she
admitted to Kathy Bakken that she neglected Mary Sykes nor did she explain how it occurred
that the siblings and younger daughter are (and were) not allowed any communication with Mary
Sykes. Carolyn Toerpe was a key witness as to the undisclosed averments made against the
respondent. It is disingenuous on the part of the Administrator to fail to call Ms. Toerpe as a
witness.
On the other hand, Gloria Sykes’ affidavits are clear and concise reports by a recognized
and award winning journalist. (The affidavits contradict the assertions of the panel and the
Administrator.) The Administrator never called Ms Sykes as a witness though Ms. Sykes
and Mr. Evans were both housed in the witness room during the hearing. Mr. Evans, a
person who had high government security clearance, was also not called by the Administrator to
impeach the respondent. (Evans’ affidavit similarly contradicted the assertions of the
Administrator and the panel.)
There were others who would have been discovered by the Administrator if he had in fact
done a minimum investigation. E-mails obtained by the Administrator disclosed that the plenary
guardian had admitted to Kathy Bakken that she had neglected her mother. Indeed, Evans,
331 P age
Kathy Bakken and her mother all witnessed the abusive treatment of Mary Sykes. It is believed
that many individuals have communicated with the ARDC and submitted complaints concerning
Stem, Farenga, Schmiedel et al. These citizens are key witnesses – the Administrator called
none of them as witnesses.
Clear and Convincing as the heightened standard of proof obligates the Administrator to
actually present proof of misconduct on the part of the respondent. The burden is not met by
naked claims – there must be some substantive evidence presented. This evidence must be by
testimony by persons who have actual knowledge and can and did testify subject to cross
examination that a particular phrase is or was untrue. Then and there the witness must testify to
facts that indicate that the statement was reckless. The record in this proceeding shows the
Administrator did not do this. The Record of proceedings and of the Panel did not disclose any
such testimony. According to its settled meaning clear and convincing is not only the allocation
of the burden of proof but also an imposition of a heightened standard of proof. Microsoft Corp.
v. i4i Ltd. P’ship, 131 S. Ct. 2238, 2246,180 L. Ed. 2d 131 (2011).35
3.
The First Amendment.
Unfortunately, the abnormalities springing from the Sykes case mount. One frightening
scenario is discussed at pages 78 through 810f Judge Connor’s evidence deposition. Therein the
presiding Judge admits in a transcript, facts that depict her disclosing that a final order entered by
another trial level judge could be obviated and Full Faith and Credit obviated in her court, to wit:
35 Herein, the Administrator made no effort to disprove the affidavits of Gloria Sykes, Scott Evans or the siblings of
Mary Sykes. Instead, the panel just assumed that the Administrator had something and ignored even the
‘admissions’ of the presiding judge referred to supra.
341 P age
“let me tell you probably what happened if that were requested of Judge Mulhern.
She would send it to me to consolidate it with this probate case in five seconds.
The net effect of such a scenario is a corruption in which a final order entitled to full faith
and credit is vacated without compliance with 735 ILCS 5/2 1401. The vested rights of Mary
Sykes’ younger daughter are vitiated by ‘sleight of hand.’ This extra judicial action (disclosed in
court documents which cannot be reconciled with statutory authority and located in the evidence
deposition) is contrary to all ethical considerations and the Constitutional criterion of ‘Full Faith
and Credit.’ Gloria Sykes indeed credibly complains that this is exactly what happened in
the Sykes case and her claim has great credibility. For respondent to complain of this outrage is
not reckless or inappropriate, it is morally required. Pursuant to Himmel the complaint of
respondent is mandated.
Significantly the authentication of this particular averment is clear from the record in
the Sykes case. The Administrator did not call Gloria Sykes or any ofthe litigants in
the Lumberman’s case to prove that the respondent’s request for an investigation of Farenga,
Stem, et al for their role in denying Gloria Sykes full faith and credit of her judgment in
the Lumberman’s case. At ROP 83 Mr. Schmiedel admits that the Lumberman’s insurance
policy did not carry as a beneficiary Mary Sykes. It is hornbook law that a person not a party to
a contract has no claim on the proceeds of the contract. In this disciplinary case it is respectfully
submitted that Administrator could not and would not meet the standard of Clear and Convincing
Evidence as to any of the statements made by respondent.
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states:
“Congress shall make no law *** abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or
the right of people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for redress
of grievances.”
351 P age
The prohibition has been extended by the 14th amendment to State Government and in Illinois
Article 1 echoes the prohibition. There is no statement in the Constitution of either the State of
Illinois or the United States of America that allows the ARDC or any other organization to
interfere with ‘content’ based speech. Thus the Supreme Court held that the Stolen Valor Act
constituted a content-based restriction on free speech, and was a violation of the First
Amendment; United States v. Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. 2537, 183 L. Ed. 2d 574 (2012). The illegal
restraint on Free Speech imposed herein is clearly inappropriate pursuant to said authority that
the ARDC, the hearing Panel and the State of Illinois must adhere. The Administrator has no
authority to nUllify a decision o/the Supreme Court o/the United States.
The ultra vires action of the Administrator and the ARDC is further condemned
by Brown. The Supreme Court, Justice Scalia, held that in Brown v. Entm’t Merchants Ass’n,
131 S. Ct. 2729, 180 L. Ed. 2d 708 (2011) that:
1) video games qualify for First Amendment protection;
2) while there are limited exceptions to prohibition against content-based
governmental restrictions on expression, for obscenity, incitement and fighting words,
new categories of unprotected speech may not be added; and
3) California failed to satisfy burden of showing either that the law was justified by
compelling government interest, or that law, which was both over-and underinclusive,
was narrowly drawn to serve that interest. Brown v. Entm’t Merchants Ass’n, 131 S. Ct.
2729, 180 L. Ed. 2d 708 (2011)
Thus, the violent videos referred to in Brown are protected speech!36 Obnoxious
behavior is also content based speech and it is also protected. The picketing by a church group
36 Citizen are “laughing” at the legal profession pointing out that it is legal to depict Grandma being brutalized, but
in Illinois it is illegal for attorneys to complaint about the brutalization. Actions such as the instant proceeding are
denigrating the legal profession as they are so obviously wrong and inappropriate.
361 P age
of the burial of armed forces members qualified as protected speech. The Supreme Court, Chief
Justice Roberts, held that:
1) in light of content, form, and context, speech of church members who picketed
near the funeral of military service member was of public concern and therefore was
entitled to special protection under the First Amendment, and
2) father was not a captive audience at the funeral, for purposes of captive audience
doctrine. Snyderv. Phelps, 131 S. Ct. 1207, 179 L. Ed. 2d 172 (2011).
The Seventh Circuit ruled held that aldermen who removed a student’s painting of former Mayor
Washington wearing women’s underwear were not entitled to immunity from § 1983 action
despite their contention that to allow the painting to remain on display might have sparked riots
from the community. Nelson v. Streeter, 16 F.3d 145 (7th Cir. 1994).
United States v. Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. 2537, 183 L. Ed. 2d 574 (2012) protects content
based speech that is untrue. [The IARDC has not been delegated as thought policeman or censor
of the spoken word.] It is clear that content based speech does not allow for an arbitrator to
determine if it is true or not – it is absolutely protected. The respondent has an absolute right to
claim that Mayor Washington wears woman’s underwear and to be critical of the ruling of
Justice X, Y, and Z. He does not even need a basis for his comments. This may be offensive,
but Brown and Synder obviate any doubt as to his absolute right.
The other side of this proposition is harsh. Government (including the ARDC), is bound
to give full faith and credit to the Ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States and it is a
gross ethical violation to attempt to deny a citizen his/her civil rights. (See National
Association of Manufacturers vs. NLRB 2013 WL 1876234). In fact this disregard for the
Constitutional Rights of respondent, Gloria Sykes, Mary Sykes, JoAnne Denison, et aI, is
371 P age
sanctionable and can be grounds for impeachment37
. Thus, it is clear the government including
the ARDC has no jurisdiction to interfere with protected content based speech. The IARDC was
not and are not delegated the opportunity or the right to attempt to censor any content based
speech including critical commentary on the current Administration, the past Administration, and
even the IARDC itself. Certainly the political speech of calling attention to actions by “judicial
officials” appointed by a Court lacking jurisdiction is protected. The attempt at censorship is
not however protected or to be countenanced.
The instant respondent, while incidentally a lawyer, has not formally appeared in
any Sykes Court proceeding as representing anyone other than himself. (The Rule 137
motion, wrongfully brought by Stern, Farenga and Schmeidel before Judge Connors, sans
jurisdiction upholds this statement.) He is a private citizen and outside observer who has
expressed his content related views. It is respectfully submitted that the Administrator’s
actions in prosecuting this matter are ultra-vires and clearly improper.
This panel, the Administrator, and even the Supreme Court of Illinois are bound by the
rulings of the Supreme Court of the United States. The issuance of a law license does not
abrogate the respondent’s civil rights or his right to speak out on any subject that he desires
and give the pubic the benefit of his content related speech without interference from ‘judicial
officials’ who were appointed by a Court that lacked jurisdiction (and/or apologists for the
37 It is a very sad day when an attorney is singled out and prosecuted for communicating with friends, associates,
and others concerning a situation in which a 90 year old senior citizen is being mistreated. It is not denied that Mary
Sykes has been kept from having contact with her younger daughter and her younger siblings. (Affidavits of Gloria
Sykes and Scott Evans.) It is not denied that the plenary guardian opened Mary Sykes safety deposit box and took
therefrom gold coins valued at a million dollars (see affidavit of Gloria Sykes). Indeed, the statements of fact
contained in the e-mails that the respondent sent to friends, family, associates, others and law enforcement
are not denied! The hearing panel just decided that whatever the Administrator claimed, had to be true, ignoring
the fact that the clear and convincing standard was not met. What is troubling is the fact that during examination the
Administrator’s attorney is reported by the court reporter to inquire of respondent ifhe was repentant for writing the
Attorney General of the United States concerning the Sykes case. Democracy is not a spectator sport and ifnot
nurtured and defended it can be lost.
381 P age
“judicial officials.’) The complaint filed herein must be dismissed with prejudice and the ARDC
must investigate the charges that have been brought by Gloria Sykes, JoAnne Denison, the
Bakkens, Mr. Evans, and others to protect the public and in particular Mary Sykes who has been
illegally deprived of her liberty and property rights. (See Gloria Sykes affidavit and Scott Evans
affidavit. )
CONCLUSION
Ҥ 5. Public policy. Pursuant to the fundamental philosophy of the American
constitutional form of government, it is declared to be the public policy of the State of
Illinois that the constitutional rights of citizens and organizations to be involved and
participate freely in the process of government must be encouraged and safeguarded with
great diligence. The information, reports, opinions, claims, arguments, and other
expressions provided by citizens are vital to effective law enforcement, the operation of
government, the making of public policy and decisions, and the continuation of
representative democracy. The laws, courts, and other agencies of this State must provide
the utmost protection for the free exercise of these rights of petition, speech, association,
and government participation. *****” IL ST CH 735 § 110/5
The hearing panel’s report does not comport with the policy of the State of Illinois and/or
standard of proof that is required by the IARDC’s own Rules. Most significantly the ‘content’
based communications that are claimed to have been initiated by the respondent are all protected
speech. This Panel, the ARDC, and even the ‘judicial officials’ appointed by a Court lacking
jurisdiction are all bound by the Rule of Law and in particular the rulings of Supreme Court of
the United States. The recent Virginia Supreme Court in its recent opinion Horace Frazier
Hunter v. Virginia State Bar No. 121472,2013 WL 749494 recognizes that lawyers are citizens
first. As citizens the lawyers (including the respondent) are immune from attempts to censor
their content based speech. The Illinois Supreme Court rulings in the Nazi Skokie March cases
are also consistent.
391 P age
The instant respondent’s situation is even more pressing due to the fact that he at all times
relevant except when a sans jurisdiction sanction motion was brought against him to intimidate
him and stop his investigation of wrongdoing by averred “judicial officials” acted as a private
individual and not in his legal persona. ‘The Administrator ‘Fudging the facts’ and making
statements that everyone knows to be inaccurate does not create any pecuniary interest in the
respondent as to the subject matter of the complaints believed to have been filed by the
miscreants who were appointed by a Court not having jurisdiction.
The evidence deposition of the Presiding Judge and in particular the statements Attorney
Brown elicited from the Presiding Judge is fatal to any claim that any of the communications
between respondent and others was reckless or false. The suggestion of the presiding judge that
the legislative plan found in 755 ILCS 5/11a – 1 et seq. allowed any discretion to avoid
the Sodini notices i.e., actual notice to close relatives 14 days prior to the hearing on
incompetency is an admission of impropriety and a lack of jurisdiction on the part of the judicial
officials and the court. More seriously it is an admission of the intentional illegal and
unconstitutional deprivation under color of statute of Mary Sykes’ liberty and property rights. 42
USCA 1983. The aforesaid evidence deposition is a treasure trove of evidence of the fact that
senior citizen rights were ignored or intentionally taken from Mary Sykes and others.
The wrongfulness of the actions of the ‘judicial officials’ appointed by a Court lacking
jurisdiction and their apologists (or comrades) is accented by the recommendation that the
respondent be punished for exercising his vested First Amendment Rights by suspension for
four years. As the Supreme Court has historically been reluctant to allow any infringement on
content based speech stands, the Administrator is on quicksand in regard to this prosecution.
However, even if the First Amendment had been secretly repealed last night the fact that the
40 I P age
Administrator cannot detail the statements that the respondent claims are untrue and has the
burden to plead and prove by clear and convincing evidence that the statements were knowingly
untrue it would be impossible to provide credible proof that can meet the standard of a scintilla
much less clear and convincing. Similarly proving that unspecified statements were in reckless
disregard is impossible.
As a former government employee with extra-ordinary security clearance and a prize
winning journalist have both provided affidavits to the commission and neither was called as a
witness, the prosecution of respondent is an oxymoron. Indeed, it is very sad that the ARDC had
to expose its own lack of respect for the provisions of the Bill of Rights and in particular the First
and Fourteenth Amendments. A judge in Michigan was recently suspended without pay because
he demonstrated a lack of knowledge as to the mandates of the Fifth Amendment. Herein we
have State paid attorneys demonstrating a lack of understanding of the First Amendment and
they promulgate the prosecution of a private citizen who happens to be an attorney for the
exercise of his personal First Amendment Rights. It is respectfully submitted that so outrageous
is such action that an honest, complete and comprehensive investigation must be conducted as to
these miscreants. Lawyers who lack knowledge as to the basic principles of the American
Republic are incompetent and a serious hazard to the public.
As the total record herein attests respondent followed his conscience and loudly protested
(and continues to even more loudly protest) the scenario of Mary Sykes. The Respondent has no
reason to repent for calling attention to:
1. The failure of the Circuit Court to follow the Law of the State of Illinois as
defined by 11 a-I 0 and Sodini.
2. The unusual court proceedings disclosed to the ARDC panels in the Court
Record in Sykes and the response of the presiding Judge in the Sykes case.
411 P age
3. The non-inventory of substantial sums belonging to Mary Sykes including the
Million dollars in gold coins disclosed in the Gloria Sykes affidavit.
4. The mistreatment of Mary Sykes disclosed in the Scott Evans affidavit.
5. Other extrajudicial proceedings reported in the Sykes record.
6. The continued actions of the Circuit Court without jurisdiction.
7. The conduct of Stem, Farenga, and others reasonably calculated to silence Gloria
Sykes and others.
It would be immoral and contrary to American Democratic Principles for the Respondent
not to call for an honest, complete and comprehensive investigation, thus, Respondent has made
such a call and reiterates the same. What has happened in these proceedings and in the Mary
Sykes proceedings is deplorable, wrong, reprehensible and not appropriate for America.
Respondent urges this panel to dismiss the charges against the respondent and join with
respondent in demanding an honest, complete and comprehensive investigation as to the Sykes
case and similar cases could occur in the United States of America.
Wherefore the respondent prays for instant dismissal of these proceedings with prejudice.
Kenneth Ditkowsky
5940 W. Touhy Ave, Niles, Illinois 60
Kenditkowsky@yahoo.com
421 P age

5 thoughts on “Ken Ditkowsky’s totally Excellent Response to the Tribunal

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 )

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