Of cabbages and kings, and miscreants and probate victims.

Tonight Roseanne Miller, a probate victim herself (money missing from father’s estate, father left with known abuser, home eventually found filthy and brother jailed for elder abuse and battery upon father) will speak on the following show at the following link:

Everyone is invited to call in and participate.  OPG’s, probate attys, GALs, and most of all, probate victims.

Come and share your thoughts and your concerns and ways to improve this system.

I really do hope that some day the legislatures will pass a law saying the write of habeus corpus is available to disableds who have been isolated and imprisoned in nursing homes against their will and the lower (corrupt) probate courts stand by and do nothing about it.  All states should also allow the tort of “loss of consortium between parent and child” when both want to see each other desperately–Gloria is a main case in point.

good luck to you.  my thoughts and prayers will be with you tonight.


—–Original Message—–
From: RosANNa Miller
Sent: Jun 30, 2013 2:36 PM
To: JoAnne M Denison
Subject: Re: Marti’s Talk show on corruption and how to fix it.

yes anyone can and I hope some can post some of the links I have shared on the blog. I will try but mostly will be engaged in the conversation. I am going to try and keep posting my Habeas and the Affidavit of Disqualification because they both have so much documented evidence in both….
You can call in too so please do. Yes I post it. I have to run out for a couple hours….
Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2013 3:26 PM
Subject: Re: Marti’s Talk show on corruption and how to fix it.
WONDERFUL.  Okay to post?  Can anyone join in?

—–Original Message—–
From: RosANNa Miller
Sent: Jun 30, 2013 1:54 PM
Subject: Marti’s Talk show on corruption and how to fix it.

I am going to be on Marti’s show tonight. Please join in… If you sign in you can text chat with others. Or you can call in….. We will be talking about probate, collusion and conspiracy largely in the judicial branch.
More information:
Here is the 10 min video I told you about. It is CRAMMED full of information. Get paper and pencil. this is soooooo good.
This is another one from NYcommitteemen that is awesome showing the big over all picture. They are now called National Liberty Alliance as they are going NATIONAL helping to form Common Law Grand Juries.!!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=FOic5Fxe3Cs#at=54

Take your pick on the bio or combine them……..

I am dealing with the cover up of the death of my Mother then the court system left my Dad with Dementia and mentally impaired incompetent in abuse and literally living like a pig for 6 yrs while I tried to get guardianship which the court refused me.

Now the corporate agents have stolen $250,000 from their estate. My Dad is now in a nursing home trying to kill himself so the agents loaded him up on drugs to subdue him which is abuse by chemical restraint. The agents have gutted their home throwing away any final evidence to link the suspect of Mom’s death while it is still an “ongoing” investigation. The Corporate Agents have done everything they can to support the suspect and abuser cause they knew that is where they would make their money. The suspect walks free to this day. This is nothing short of conspiracy and racketeering. Great country we live in. I have had more cases than carters has pills and I can not get any decent legal help with any of this even though we have a Constitution protecting our God endowed unalienable rights. I live in the Twilight Zone of the Outer Limits everyday and wonder why I get up!!!

My Mom has no justice for her death and there is still no headstone on her grave. It is bare. Dad has been isolated from all of us and they will steal the balance of their estate and in all plunder a half million dollars. If I had had any viable help to stop this I would have gladly given it to the group who assisted me instead of throwing it into HELL!!!!

Mom needs justice and Dad back with me, the estate paid back and these criminal thieves in prison…..Till then we are at war with the Domestic Enemies that is supposed to serve the people.


Murder, Elder Abuse and Exploitation

Should a Common Law Grand Jury indict to INVESTIGATE how the government let these crimes proceed?

This Writ for Petition of Habeas Corpus to the Ohio Supreme Court outlines the crimes that have been committed on my parents Clair and Ann Miller and petitions to release my 80 year old Dad out of the prison he was abducted and incarcerated into by agents of the Logan County Ohio corporate government. The Ohio Supreme Court denied this Writ therefore they condone murder, abuse of the elderly and theft of THE PEOPLE’S estates.

Clair is now chemically restrained after he tried to commit suicide documented in the Habeas Corpus. Clair does NOT NEED TO BE HERE. He should be home with Rosanna and family. All the LAWS, LEGAL DOCUMENTS and PROFESSIONAL CREDENTIALS were in place to stop this but the AGENTS of the government just ignored it all.

This July 16, 2012 Bellefontaine Police report for “financial exploitation” was produced late in December 2012 after having to force it. It was not available to submit with the Habeas Corpus. https://www.dropbox.com/s/08h8zb4wlnpcwgc/202%20-%20James%20Exploitation%207.15.12%20PR.pdf

Thief Lawyer Fansler inventory submitted January 2013 only after it was demanded.
Affidavit of Disqualification (this repeats and reiterates the criminal corruption)

Ann has no justice for her death or headstone on her grave!
Clair has been abused by agents of the government who have aided the suspect and abuser!
There is $250,000 plundered from their estate!

The government had a duty and responsibility to stop this. They knew it was happening all the way up to the State Level and did NOTHING. Now why would they let it proceed on?

How many hands is the stolen money in???????

“The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first“. Thomas Jefferson

Thanks Marti for what you do.
Rosanna Miller

From Judy Ditkowsky–a complaint to the Judicial Inquiry Board

See below, it says it all….

From:  Judith Ditkowsky, private citizen

June 29, 2013

To the Judicial Inquiry Committee of the State of ILLINOIS
100 West Randolph Street
Chicago, Illinois

To Members of the Board:

This communication regarding a probate hearing held June 25, Room 1804 Daley Center, Chicago IL at 2 pm, Judge Jane Stuart presiding will be quite extensive, therefore I am beginning with a summary.


Matter:  09 P 4585 Mary Sykes
Parties present at the hearing:  Guardians et al:
Plenary Guardian, Mrs. Carolyn Toerpe, daughter of Mrs. Mary Sykes
Attorney for Plenary Guardian:  Peter Schmiedel
Guardians ad Litem:  Cynthia Farenga, Adam Stern,
Attorney for or working with the guardians ad litem:                                         Amanda Byrne,  of Fischel and                                     Kahn Ltd., Chicago, IL
Attorney for Chase Bank: (name unknown)
Claimant: Gloria Sykes, pro se

1)    LACK of jurisdiction.
2)    EX-PARTE proceedings
4)    WASTE LAID to the personal and real possessions of the “ward”
6)    Unfounded Allegations of misconduct against Ms. Gloria Sykes
7)    Misuse of the police force of the city of Naperville
8)    Promulgation of an order which is unconscionable, legally, morally or in justice.



Ms. Gloria Sykes provided Judge Stuart and all the known other parties mentioned a motion on June 24, 2013, including exhibits of recently received information on the NON-EXISTENCE of jurisdictional notices including a possible window warrant on Mary Sykes at any point before she came under the custody of Mrs. C. Toerpe, or before any guardianship actions were undertaken.  Even while in the custody of Mrs. Toerpe, after the fact, records do not exist in the office of Tom Dart, Sheriff of Cook County, showing an executed summons.  A letter signed by Sheriff Dart, along with a copy of records attests to this fact. Without an executed summons, or executed window warrant, no jurisdiction ever existed over the person or property of Mrs. Mary Sykes.  Without regard to this fact, which was added to other non-service of warrants on other persons required to be served – and denials by Ms. Gloria Sykes that her mother was ever served in any manner according to law, Judge Stuart proceeded with hearings which existed under color of law, but without authority.

To me it seems quite clear that Peter Schmiedel, who provided a copy of the so called summons which he stated would definitively show that jurisdiction in this case existed, has NEVER IN HIS LIFE done such a plebian thing as actually start a service, follow it through with the appropriate clerks and sheriff deputies, and ensure that all “i’s” were dotted and every “t” crossed.

First of all, there are special sections in the Statute governing the elderly and other wards of the State requiring a special service form to be used.  The form which Mr. Schmiedel so proudly presented was a garden variety service form.  The statutory form has something like eleven protections which are to appear in LARGE FONT BOLD PRINT: things like “you are entitled to a jury of six persons” , “you are entitled to an attorney of your choice”, etc. etc.

Apparently, an attorney who needs to provide service to a citizen must first pay a fee of $50.00 to a clerk.  The clerk then stamps the form in two places.  In one place, the financial details of the payment are provided.  In another place, there are stamped blanks where the name of the person to be served is filled in.  Interestingly, the last name appears in a different handwriting and a different thickness of pen than the first name and middle initial of Mrs. Mary Sykes name.  There is also an illegible signature followed by a badge number, also, interestingly, in the same different nib size.

It is the next step which is crucial.  This particular document is supposed to be something called a window warrant.  Evidently the person at the Sheriff’s office takes the receipt to a different clerk OR officer.  The warrant is then supposed to be handed to a sheriff’s deputy who hands it to the end recipient, stamps the receipt with a BATES NUMBER (so that it can be cross-referenced in the Sheriff’s Files), and signs, UNDER OATH, on the line provided, after the recipient has received his or her copy or on his or her copy.  Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart, on his letterhead, with his signature, has provided a copy of all records pertaining to Mrs. Mary Sykes.  They show the failed service known about by all prior to May 5, 2013, to the address of Mrs. Mary Sykes: it failed, because Mrs. Carolyn Toerpe had ALREADY removed the unwilling Mrs. Mary Sykes out of Cook County to her own house in Du Page County BEFORE ANY SERVICE AT ALL HAD BEEN ATTEMPTED.

It was not until May 5, 2013, that a friend of Ms. Gloria Sykes took it upon herself to go to the Office of the Sheriff of Cook County to look up the record, and found, to her surprise, that there was no record of window warrant service.  Thereafter, another friend wrote to the Sheriff, requesting the history of all records, and it was a copy of the reply letter, received the week of June 17 which was delivered to all the known attorneys and to Judge Stewart on Monday June 24, 2013.  This effort was ignored by Judge Stuart.

I am a lay person, a retired chemistry teacher.  I have recently read Wolf Hall, and believe that even Henry VIII had some sort of sheriff’s service procedure. The Illinois Statute, which I have read, provides that the Sheriff shall serve a copy of the petition for guardianship, a summons or notice in bold face, as described above, AND service to ALL near relatives such as Mrs. Mary Sykes surviving two younger sisters, and to both daughters.  The server has to acknowledge that he gave the proposed ward the summons, the appropriate warnings in the appropriate print, and a copy of the petition, in a sworn or certified return. Also missing was any indication that Mrs. Sykes near relatives had any notice or knowledge whatsoever prior to any hearing, particularly not the specified full fourteen days of notice.

The document provided by Mr. Schmiedel did not accord in any way with the requirements of the Statute.  It is the first duty of a judge in ANY proceeding to determine that jurisdiction has been attained, and that determination is procedurally determined and not a matter of individual judgment, speculation or preference.   I have seen a plethora of case law on the subject as well; this is not something arcane, mysterious or little known!!!

Judge Stuart ignored the right of all parties to a hearing to be present at all consultations involving the litigants.  In full view of the court, she denied Ms. Sykes, a pro se litigant, the right to be present at the bar while she spoke privately to the lawyers and plenary guardian listed above.  This meets any definition of ex parte proceeding that I, a non-lawyer, have ever been able to find.  While Ms. Sykes is barred from representing anyone else, she stands as her own lawyer in these proceedings ; she is a de facto lawyer for herself and has been unjustifiably excluded.


Four lawyers for the three guardians were present, plus one lawyer for the Chase Bank who was not expected to be present, therefore no preparation for
his appearance was possible.  They, and the plenary guardian, Mrs. Carolyn Toerpe,  were accorded every courtesy.  HOWEVER, had a member of the bar been representing Ms. Gloria Sykes, he would have been peppering each of the attorneys with “Objection: foundation”, “Objection: relevance”, “Objection: hearsay” and various other objections which as terms of art summarize whole bodies of legal principles.  Therefore, the pro se litigant is extended lenience to use common terms which sometimes need explanation. It was rare that Judge Stuart extended the courtesy even of stating “objection overruled” or “objection sustained” or “objection taken under consideration”. Instead she snapped, a la Judge Judy, “I did not call on you”; “Wait your turn”; or simply ignored Ms. Sykes’ protests as to the FACTUALITY of the allegations of the attorneys.  She did put Mrs. Toerpe under oath at one point; however, Ms. Sykes was not allowed to question Mrs. Toerpe directly.

When, however, it was Mrs. Sykes turn to speak, after at least an hour of unhindered testimony by the four attorneys and the plenary guardian, possibly much more, Judge Stuart gave her a few unhindered minutes, then started directly questioning Peter Schmiedel and others, and eventually ordered Ms. Sykes to sit down before she had had any chance to make her full case.


Personal Property: Personal property is generally of less value than real property.  Nevertheless, the duties of the Plenary Guardian include most particularly preserving the financial value of personal property and preserving the emotional health of the ward.  In order to preserve the financial value of personal property, particularly in the event of a sale, that property must be kept under proper conditions, must be appraised by a certified appraiser, an inventory must be kept, and a record kept of any proceeds of any sales.  Mrs. Mary Sykes was the recipient of a police widow’s pension, was covered by a Blue Cross Blue Shield policy, and while living independently was able to cover her needs without recourse to selling her personal property.  I am not aware of the particulars of her financial situation, but I do know that she lived the life of a typical far northwest side of Chicago matron in one of the city’s most prosperous neighborhoods, actively participating in her garden club, local politics (particularly involving public or semi-public gardens in the area), and her church.  All of these activities involve luncheons, and other luxuries, including the yearly replenishment of her own gardens and the hiring of gardening personnel.  In no way can it be believed that she lived, on her own, a life of poverty.  Since all of her sources of income were still available to her, and her share of the household electricity and gas was less than one third to one fourth of the household expenses (she was presumably not cooking independent of the family or consuming single serving prepared foods) and she was not given the freedom to use her drivers’ license, so she was not using gasoline, or shopping for clothes for luncheons, or paying extra for charity luncheons, it is not clear why living in her daughter’s house consumed her income so severely that it was necessary for her personal property to be sold at all.  Under oath, Mrs. Toerpe testified that she moved Mrs. Mary Sykes furniture first to a storage facility (the first month is usually free or one dollar), and then she moved the furniture to her personal garage, from which it was necessary to have a garage sale, in full view, no doubt, of this Mother she so “treasured”.  One can only guess at the emotional impact on Mrs. Mary Sykes of seeing her antique furniture, upholstered in silk and covered with plastic probably for forty or fifty years, and her Waterford Glass, dumped into a garage and then out onto the driveway, for a garage sale… the leftovers, as Mrs. Toerpe testified, donated to her Mother’s ’favorite charity’, Goodwill and the Salvation Army.  If this furniture bazaar was necessitated by the sale of the house (which will be covered next), it is typical in a neighborhood like Norwood Park for a House or Estate Sale to be held.  This would at least have spared Mrs. Sykes the emotional agony and pitiful sight of seeing her belongings treated so cavalierly!!!!

The purpose of the Guardians ad Litem is to protect the interest of the ward against the possible conflict of interest between the plenary guardian and the ward, but it was Ms. Gloria Sykes who provided the description of the silk upholstered furniture and the Waterford crystal, and who would have detailed the collectibles etc. so disdained by Mrs. Toerpe had her time allotment been fairly treated.  (The printed information about the personal property was given to Ms. Sykes by the Judge, who allotted her seven minutes to decide what to do with it!)  Ms. Gloria Sykes had properly serviced the four attorneys, the judge, and the plenary guardian with information and had receipts showing that the documents she had prepared  had been delivered; nevertheless, the abovementioned people had not bothered to look at their deliveries and were handed extra copies and as much time as they cared to take to deal with this material at the start of the hearing.  Frankly, it is I, a North Side “matron” who have provided the description of the way of life of my neighbors in a nearby area , even those twenty years older than myself!

REAL PROPERTY:  the plenary guardian in seeking this job represented that she would protect the real property of her ward.  Yet, under oath, she testified that she produced twelve months or more of checks at a time and never bothered to consult the invoices the bank sent for the mortgage on the house.  Predictably, with checks sent which were much smaller than the cost of the mortgage for months on end, and with the Plenary Guardian ignoring any communications from the bank, the house ended up in foreclosure.  Although Mrs. Toerpe under oath claimed that she took action to take the house out of bankruptcy, Ms. Sykes, before she was forcibly silenced by Judge Stuart claimed that in fact she had taken said action.  In any case, due to Mrs. Toerpe’s dereliction of duty, Bank of America foreclosed on the house, and Mrs. Toerpe detailed the fines, penalties and increased interest she was forced to pay to redeem the house.  Mrs. Toerpe did NOT detail the costs of the attorneys, hearings, filing fees and the like which she also must have entailed by her heedless and irresponsible behavior.  The Guardians ad Litem took NO AFFIRMATIVE ACTION to forestall this wasteful and deleterious behavior.  There was controversy, again, upon the conflicting allegations of the sisters, as to who paid for the ADT security system and even where its control box was located, and which floors were protected!

Judge Stuart’s reaction was gently to admonish the Guardians ad litem “going forward” to speak to their client and encourage her to do her fiduciary duty.  She, above all, had the obligation to see that the Guardians ad Litem performed their civic obligations in their appointed positions before the waste of property had occurred, since she clearly acts as if she in fact had and has jurisdiction over the person of Mrs. Mary Sykes.  I am horrified at her callous indifference to the duty of the plenary guardians, the guardians ad litem, and her own sworn duties to uphold the Law of the State of Illinois as it refers to the real and personal property of a so-called “ward of the state”.


Once the home and its contents had been disposed of under fire sale conditions, Mrs. Toerpe testified freely under oath that it was time for her to reimburse herself for the costs she had entailed, paying them “out of her pension” (at 2.2% x number of years worked x the average of her last four years of service, probably under pension enhancement of 5%/year for four years, and at a twelve month salary as a counselor in a district where thirty years ago ordinary ten month teachers made over $100,000 yearly, one can hardly imagine that this crimped her lifestyle, especially if she was paid as a Ph.D.)

Judge Stuart told her that she had commingled funds, since she had paid herself without a court order, and should never do such a bad thing again, and counseled the Guardians ad Litem that “going forward” they should explain this to their backward client.  (All assets have been dissipated; ‘going forward’ is meaningless.) Why was this alone not enough to terminate her guardianship, if not to bring criminal charges is enough of a mystery to me to have caused me to spend hours writing this communication to you.  Where was the protection the Guardians ad Litem were supposed to be providing their ward?  They are attorneys expected to know the law of the land.  I believe that their malpractice is also actionable.

VI.    Unfounded Allegations of misconduct against Ms. Gloria Sykes

De Novo, the guardians ad litem introduced the actions of Ms. Gloria Sykes in, having determined the location of her mother’s new domicile on the hunch that her mother’s presence in her sisters’ home would no longer be necessary since she no longer possessed any tangible assets of monetary value, and therefore would be removed to a nursing home where she might soon die.  Unfortunately for them, there is a statute ensuring that persons living in sheltered care facilities may not be isolated from family or friends.  Ms. Sykes determined that her mother, Mrs. Mary Sykes, was living at the Sunrise Center, called the center in advance, and spoke with the nurse who told Mrs. Mary Sykes that her daughter was calling.  Mrs. Mary Sykes first determined, by asking the nurse, that it was Ms. Gloria Sykes who was calling.  She does have hearing aids but was unable to hear Ms. Sykes voice over the phone, but she was heard telling the nurse to tell Ms. Gloria Sykes to come to Sunrise Center immediately.  Ms. Sykes decided to bring two friends with her; I was not invited.  I heard from Ms. Sykes before the visit and from one of the friends and Ms. Sykes immediately after the visit.

It has been my experience, visiting friends at rehab centers after hip surgery, and also at the Alden Home in Lakeview and at Self Help (also in Lakeview) visiting a sick colleague for whom I had been informally named a Patient Advocate, that often ID is required and that sign in is always required.  These patients were in full control of their own persons and property.  Therefore I am certain that Ms. Gloria Sykes and friends were required to sign into the Sunrise Center.   Their report was that Mrs. Mary Sykes immediately recognized her daughter Ms. Gloria Sykes, and clung to her with hugs and kisses.  The short visit was extended to forty-five minutes to an hour, depending on the reporter (including Mr. Stern), because Mrs. Mary Sykes would not relinquish her daughter.  When Mrs. Carolyn Toerpe arrived on the scene, Mrs. Mary Sykes is reported to have said, “Good.  Now I have my two daughters together.  There are some things we have to discuss.”  At that point, Mrs. Carolyn Toerpe lunged at her younger sister, but was prevented from a full blown battery by the intervention of the male friend who had accompanied Ms. Gloria Sykes.  Ms. Sykes was able to escape injury.  Then Mrs. Carolyn Toerpe is reported to have grabbed her mother forcibly by the arm and dragged to a room which she then locked.  By any measure, this is elder abuse, assault and battery.  As she was being dragged away, I was told that Mrs. Mary Sykes asked Mrs. Carolyn Toerpe when she would next see her younger daughter Gloria.  Mrs. Toerpe’s answer is reported to have been “Never”.

In some manner, Mr. Stern became aware of the presence of Ms. Gloria Sykes and her friends at the Sunrise center and is said to have falsely reported that Ms. Gloria Sykes had caused a commotion.  I have been told that Mr. Stern was not even on the premises when this call was made.  HOWEVER, other persons were on the premises.  There is a record of the arrival of Ms. Gloria Sykes and her friends and of Mrs. Carolyn Toerpe in their own handwriting with a time listed in any sheltered care facility.  This personal knowledge on my part is necessary to detail the extreme horror of what ensued in the Courtroom of Judge Jane Stuart.

Mr. Stern told his version of the story.  Ms. Sykes had been ordered to sit down next to me, and the bailiff had been enlisted, although at most she had given Ms. Sykes a gentle touch on the shoulder.  Ms. Gloria Sykes tried, from the pew on which we were sitting, to protest and object to the factuality of the fable Mr. Stern had concocted. This gave Judge Stuart an opportunity to show what a humane and justice upholding individual she was, while she castigated Ms. Gloria Sykes, without ever asking Ms. Sykes for her version of the story .  The transcript will show the exact words Judge Stuart used.  Any judicial temperament would have required that Ms. Sykes be treated as innocent until proven guilty.  Mr. Stern used the action taken by the police at his behest to “prove” the bad actions of Ms. Gloria Sykes, but in fact, after one half hour, the police released Ms. Sykes and her friends from their custody, as there was no court order, as had been alleged by Mr. Stern, and no reason for their detention.

VII.    Promulgation of an invalid and outrageous order

Mr. Stern, as a Guardian ad Litem is an Officer of the Court and he misused his position to mislead Judge Stuart and to make statements that were not provable, in light of the fact that he was not even on site to determine for himself what had occurred.  Had Judge Stuart performed her judicial office, making inquiry of Ms. Sykes and the two friends who were actually present and available to testify in the court room at that time, she would have easily determined that at the very minimum, there were contested versions of the activity which occurred once Mrs. Carolyn Toerpe appeared on the scene.   Judge Stuart then entered an order which is patently improper, as it bars all visitors from taking pictures, limiting the subjects visitors can talk about when visiting Mrs. Sykes (as a mother, I would know intuitively if my adult children were choosing their words in order to avoid certain subjects and this would trouble me deeply) and visiting Mrs. Mary Sykes without the written permission of  Carolyn Toerpe, on the basis of the unverified and unwitnessed accusations of Mr. Stern. In fact, on Monday, June 24, 2013, I have been told, the two elderly sisters (in their mid eighties) had left the north side of Chicago to visit their beloved sister in Naperville, and had been barred from this visitation upon arrival.  (This is a distance of at least thirty miles, possibly more).  The order entered is, to my lay eyes, a travesty and worthy of the removal of the judge from the bench.  I have attached a copy of the order to this letter and request you to compare it with the applicable statutes prohibiting isolation of seniors.  In this case, TWO SENIORS, not just one, were isolated from contact with their third nearest relative, also a senior, making a total of three isolations.

In addition, the order that was discussed in the hearing is not identical to the four pages of the order entered by the court.  The obnoxiousness of the provision that emposers the defective plenary guardian is highlighted by the following.  Mrs. Carolyn Toerpe was reported to have committed  actual physical and emotional (verbal) abuse to the ward, Mrs. Mary Sykes, as reported on June 23,2013 in the late afternoon/early evening in the presence of three known witnesses. Mrs. Sykes had been ordered from the bench and was sitting next to me, yelling out her protests while Mr. Stern was  making these false accusations.  The order states

“Visitation with Mary G. Sykes is subject to the prior written approval of the guardian Carolyn Toerpe.  This visitation order supercedes all prior supervision orders.”

This delegates the judicial function to Mrs. Troepe with regard to ALL visitation, effectively isolating Mrs. Sykes emotionally and in all other aspects from the world in derogation of statute and case law, basic human rights, the Constitutions of the United States and Illinois. In addition on June 25, the date of the order, sworn evidence was taken of Mrs. Carolyn Toerpe that she subjected her mother to the unnecessary emotional abuse of a garage sale of her coveted personal property in her presence (Mrs. Mary Sykes lived in the Toerpe house). Additionally Judge Stuart stated that Mrs. Carolyn Toerpe commingled funds.  She promulgated the most draconian of the orders on the basis of an unverified and uninvestigated statement by an party who was appointed to be the Guardian of Mrs. Mary Sykes’ interests as opposed to the interest of the Plenary Guardian, without investigation.  The order was issued ON THE DAY that said Guardian ad Litem had by commission and omission been shown to have failed utterly in that task. For example, the unnecessary bankruptcy proceeding took place because Mr. Stern did not properly supervise the amateurish efforts of the plenary guardian, who claims to be a Ph.D, in paying the bills.

VIII.    Misuse of the Naperville Police Force

The City of Naperville maintains its police department  to enforce its laws and to maintain order.  The police force was summoned by a non-witness to harass innocent people, legally making a peaceful visit to their relative and dear friend.
The miscreants were misidentified by Mr. Stern, an attorney sworn to the bar to uphold the law of the State and the Land.    In not censuring Mr. Stern for his misuse of public facilities, as a result of her failure to make even the slightest investigation of the actual situation, Judge Stuart, is not, in my sincere conviction, a conscientious jurist.  Instead, I believe that the behavior that I personally witnessed on June 25, from 2 pm until at least 4 pm, possibly later, was an example of Judicial
Impropriety writ large.


The patent impropriety of the enclosed order speaks for itself.  It is a delegation of the functions of the Court in guardianship proceedings, to a Plenary Guardian who, in these very proceedings has been accused through the word “commingling” by the Judge, of serious and actionable misconduct, and abandonment of her fiduciary responsibility by her own testimony.  The first order of an American Court is to provide equality through the administration of justice which is blind as to persons.  The blindness in this case is to the misfeasance, malfeasance, and provability of facts  — including not only the actions and inactions of the two guardians ad Litem and  the plenary guardian, and the attorney for Mrs. Toerpe, who cannot even recognize a defective document in time to avoid sending a copy of it to a person who does recognize its lack of value,  but also the judge, who, in not immediately ascertaining the lack of jurisdiction she and her predecessor in this case have had to take control of the life of Mrs. Mary Sykes, a feisty woman who at 94 ½ still recognizes both her daughters, greets them appropriately, and can form a plan as to her own future, has caused immeasurable suffering to Mrs. Sykes, Mrs. Sykes’ sisters, and Mrs. Sykes younger daughter, continued this travesty of justice.  The order of June 25, 2013, attached, all by itself, are an indictment of the Judge and the appointees in this case.

I therefore sincerely request that the Judicial Inquiry Board make inquiry into the actions, inactions where actions are required by Statute, jurisdiction to destroy the quality of life and the personal and real property of a capable senior, judicial temperament, and judicial actions taken by the Officers of the Court, including especially Judge Stuart, but also the two guardians ad Litem, the attorney for the Plenary Guardian, and the Plenary Guardian herself.  Transcripts of the June 25 hearing I witnessed may be available as I write, through some sort of twenty-first century imaging system.  I’m sure I don’t have to detail all the resources the Judicial
Inquiry Committee has available to determine the incredible behaviors of persons who should be above reproach on only this one day of nearly four years of litigation.
The examples will multiply exponentially if even a few more hearing dates are investigated, according to what I have been told. I am confident that justice will eventually be obtained for Mrs. Mary Sykes, her younger sisters (elderly seniors also abused by these proceedings, as they have been denied the solace, companionship and comfort of the older sister who essentially raised them,) and her younger daughter, Ms. Gloria Sykes.  Judge Stuart has abdicated her responsibility to apply even handed blind justice and has become a fifth advocate for Mrs. Carolyn Toerpe.  On the basis of the actions I personally saw, the documents I have personally seen, and the lack of investigation of brutally untrue allegations falsely made by an officer of the court under her supervision, I believe Judge Jane Stuart to be unfit for the bench.  I recommend that she be removed, certainly from this case, and quite possibly from other not yet reported cases in which she may have made similar transgressions.


Judith Ditkowsky
Private citizen and court attendee/observer June 25, 2013, 2 pm

From Atty Ken Ditkowsky–an incredible order from hell….the abuser reigns

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Jun 30, 2013 6:22 AM
To: matt senator kirk , Eric Holder , Tom Kammerer , states attorney , “sheriff@dupagesheriff.org” , Cook Sheriff , mary wooley state police , “ACLU@ACLU.ORG”
Cc: NASGA , probate sharks , Michigan Advocacy Project , JoAnne Denison , “IllinoisLawyerNow@isba.org” , “ildbambic@govabuse.org” , “illinois.ardc@gmail.com” , “chicagotonight@wttw.com” , Chicago Tribune , SUNTIMES

When the American Flag is paraded by and some local politico gives his 4th of July speech take out a copy of the attached order, wave it in his/her face and ask him how in America a Court order such as the one attached could be entered even as ‘joke!’   Ask the Solon how he/she can sleep at night when public funds are being used to support “elder cleansing!”
Unfortunately this attached order (the order states Carolyn Toerpe, a known abuser, must provide written permission to all visitors at the Sunrise Nursing home), see the orders from July 25, 2013 posted elsewhere on the blog) is not unique and the miscreants who polluted American jurisprudence with their attornment are not unique, but part of a growing number of amoral people who have law degrees that they are using to exploit and abuse senior citizens, the disabled and those that our society elected to protect.   the cancer is metastatic and the media, law enforcement, the legal profession and Americans in general have in the past celebrated their liberty by being complacent. Parens Patrie is dead!  
Please read the order attached in perspective.    Then if you love the freedom and culture America represents FREE MARY SYKES and those elders who are similarly situated.    Reject Buck vs. Bell being applied to your grandmother, grandfather and other seniors!
[The two GALs in the Sykes case joke that they have prepared ‘orange jump suits’ and one actively is reported to be attempting to intimidate the family of Sykes – he is threatening them that if they stand up to ‘elder cleansing’ they will be barred from contact with their loved one, however, if they are complacent he personally will arrange for their visitation with her without the written consent of the plenary guardian!    (he made this threat before and after he believed that he had thwarted the threat of an honest investigation – he had excuses why Mary should be isolated again).  He did not guaranty that the victims would be able to speak freely or even enjoy social intercourse.      I and many others have called for an HONEST complete and comprehensive investigation and the Government accounting office filed a report to Congress as to similar outrages – This 4th lets celebrate our freedom by accommodating the two Sykes GALs with brand new orange jump suits (why are there two GALs) as a reward for the American National Socialist Taliban order attached!]
Ken Ditkowsky
—– Forwarded Message —–
From: kenneth ditkowsky <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>
To: matt senator kirk <matt_abbott@kirk.senate.gov>; Eric Holder <askdoj@usdoj.gov>; SUNTIMES <letters@suntimes.com>; Chicago Tribune <tips@tribune.com>; NASGA <NASGA.org@gmail.com>; probate sharks <verenusl@gmail.com>; Cook Sheriff <sheriff.dart@cookcountyil.gov>; states attorney <statesattorney@cookcountyil.gov>; “sheriff@dupagesheriff.org” <sheriff@dupagesheriff.org>; mary wooley state police <Mary_Woolery@isp.state.il.us>; “chicagotonight@wttw.com” <chicagotonight@wttw.com>; “ACLU@ACLU.ORG” <ACLU@ACLU.ORG>; “acluofillinois@aclu-il.org” <acluofillinois@aclu-il.org>; Tom Kammerer <KammererT@naperville.il.us>; JoAnne Denison <JoAnne@DenisonLaw.com>; Edward Carter <ECarter@atg.state.il.us>; Kathie Bakken <k_bakken@att.net>; scott evans <scottcevans@hotmail.com>
Cc: j ditkowsky <jdit@aol.com>; Martha Jantho <utterby@sbcglobal.net>; Harry Heckert <vahrh1135@aol.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 29, 2013 9:55 PM
Subject: Fw: order entered by Judge Stuart dated 6/25/13 phase 2
Dear Senator Kirk and Attorney General Holder
I received an e-mail from Gloria Sykes today that she tried to contact her mother by telephone.   As expected the attached order was effective to thwart any contact with Mary Sykes and in particular contact with the younger daughter.
It should be noted that Adam Stern is reported to have attempted to bribe the two siblings with visitation if they become estranged from Gloria and her efforts to obtain an investigation of the continued isolation of Mary.  These Taliban tactics as well as the attached order are the credo to cottage industry that preys on the most vulnerable our senior citizens and denies them of their liberty and property.
Senator Kirk and General Holder – we need you help now while Mary Sykes still has life!    I’ve copied the Sheriff of DuPage County and Tom Kammererer of the Naperville Police Department as I am requesting wellness checks on Mary Sykes.  I do not want Mary to suffer the same fate as Rudy Bush’s mother!   I’ve attached a copy of the horrific order that Judge Stuart entered to remind everyone of the type of amoral people helpless and vulnerable senior citizens are facing.
Senator Kirk – you suffered a stroke!   I am a cancer survivor a bit long in the tooth.  Had I not had a a cadre of activist friends, and had you not been a United States Senator  we and our potentially vulnerable families could have had an Adam Stern, Cynthia Farenga, Peter Schmiedel in our future!   Judge Stuart could have entered a similar order to keep us isolated while we were deprived of our liberty and *****.  
This is a crisis for the vulnerable!   The vulnerable senior citizens need help!  Read the attached order!   This is not NORTH KOREA – A Judge in the United States of America signed her name to the death warrant order for Mary Sykes.  God Help us!
Ken Ditkowsky
From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Jun 30, 2013 8:50 AM
To: GLORIA Jean SYKES , Judy D
Cc: JoAnne Denison , probate sharks , “ACLU@ACLU.ORG” , “illinois.ardc@gmail.com” , NASGA , matt senator kirk , Eric Holder
Subject: Re: forwarding to the JIB

The letter that Judy wrote is already in the public domain and therefore you are free to use it as you wish.
The order entered by Judge Stuart on June25, 2013 qualifies as the most horrible and venal order I’ve ever read or had contact with in my fifty plus years of practice of law.   The Supreme Court in it icon case of Near vs. Minnesota pointed out that prior restraint on free speech was absolutely prohibited, yet, Stuart had no problem with it as she illegally delegated the authority that the Illinois legislature delegated to her in 755 ILCS 5/11a – 17 and 5/lla – 18.
What was most impressive in the order was the fact that it provides the no-one can visit your mother without the written permission of the very person that Mary sought protection from, and the fact that Adam Stern is now actively attempting to use that provision to separate you from the support of your two aunts who were also denied the appropriate prior notice required by 755 ILCS 5/11a – 10(f).   (exactly how Stern, Farenga, and Schmiedel are going to get around the Sheriff’s documents and the lack of any evidence that Mary was served with a copy of the summons, the statement of her rights in proper font and form, and a copy of the petition.    (Even though the IARDC considers it unethical I have open and notoriously copied Senator Kirk’s office and the Attorney General of the United States in regard to the reply of this e-mail.)
Ken Ditkowsky
From: GLORIA Jean SYKES <gloami@msn.com>
To: Judy D <ditkowskyj@gmail.com>
Cc: JoAnne Denison <JoAnne@DenisonLaw.com>; probate sharks <verenusl@gmail.com>; “ACLU@ACLU.ORG” <ACLU@ACLU.ORG>; “illinois.ardc@gmail.com” <illinois.ardc@gmail.com>; Judy D <ditkowskyj@gmail.com>; Atty Ken Ditkowsky <ken@ditkowskylawoffice.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2013 7:37 AM
Subject: Re: forwarding to the JIB
Dear Judy may I please forward to the Judiciary Inquiry Board with my final complaint on Judge Stuart? Also it would be most appreciative if Margaret could also write a bystanders report. Public opinion outlining the facts as you have so professionally and honestly must and should turn heads.
I am going. To DC on *** and would like to hand deliver to **** as well as will. E meeting with east coast publishers and national media. My mother has been overtly kidnapped by a private company that is publicly traded. The dept. if health gave it a pass based on affudavits from unknown employees who claim that my complaints were unsubstantiated: another words Carolyn Toerpe did not strike and shove senior Doris Evans and overtly physically and verbally abuse my mother telling her that she’d NEVER see me again when mother asked when I’d return to visit.
Thank you all and yes I know time is of most importance
My mother’s life is at stake
I hope NASGA steps in
Thank you again.Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 29, 2013, at 10:36 PM, “kenneth ditkowsky” <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com> wrote:
Judy –
I’ve sent your letter on to JoAnne.   I agree with it 100%    I’ve also forwarded it to law enforcement based upon the now total isolation of Mary Sykes once again.
Ken Ditkowsky
—– Forwarded Message —–
From:jdit@aol.com” <jdit@aol.com>
To: kenditkowsky@yahoo.com
Sent: Saturday, June 29, 2013 10:21 PM
Subject: Fwd: Here it is.
This is the copy of the word document that I want JoAnne to post;
—–Original Message—–
From: j. d. <jdit@aol.com>
To: jdit <jdit@aol.com>
Sent: Sat, Jun 29, 2013 7:38 pm
Subject: Fwd: Fwd: Here it is.

From Gloria–a great news report from a while back

Here you can see some of the many probate blog workers informing the public on how probate is not a place to go without a lot of research and information.

from GJS:

Perhaps it’s time to republish the Mike Kellerman report from Press TV from two years ago…. it’s the same story and the congress people and senators we met with who promised to help, have yet to help.

at least it’s a good honest story.
 One thing not mentioned in the story is how it is typical for a OPG or Plenary Guardian to grab hold of an estate, place a disabled in an expensive nursing home.  Rack up attys fees from a Guardian ad Litem and a probate attorney for the Plenary Guardian, and fees for social workers, evaluators and other personnel, and over a very few years a paid up home and bank account can be drained $300,000 to $500,000 and then the elder is left indigent, and often in low quality nursing homes, or downright dangerous ones, or even on the street in rooming houses, eating out of soup kitchens.  True stories abound.
As the population ages, they need to be aware this is not a good tactic for anyone.
It’s downright scary.
But good job, GJS, Tim Lahrman and others who did this video in front of the Dept. of Justice a while back.

From Ken Ditkowsky — Most important order — CT a known abuser is the gatekeeper of visitation

Yeah, the result of CT grabbing Mary’s hand until she cried out in pain, is that SHE determines in writing who gets to see Mary and who doesn’t.

See below

CT must approve all visitation

And here are additional orders  from that day:

Other orders from 6/28/13

Ken’s Response?

Free the victims of Elder Cleansing
By now everyone has received or has had access to the latest orders entered in the Sykes case 09 P 4585   
As you can see from the four pages and two orders the real focus on the orders was and is to keep Mary from having visitors and keeping her isolated.     When the transcript is available it will be spread on-line for the world to see.   
The disguising spectacle that was exhibited on June 25, 2013 in the Daley Center is just one of many that have been observed in the Mary Sykes case.   Unfortunately every day there are dozens of similar performances occurring across the land and victim after victim cries out for help to deaf ears.    Families of victims cry out to even deafer ears!   
 The two orders entered by Judge Stuart (which have been posted and circulated) are so obscene as to shock the conscience of a Nazi storm trooper!        The plenary guardian has a history of misconduct and exhibited it a day before when she was observed and reported to have allegedly assaulted not only Mary, but Scott Evans and Gloria Sykes.    The by-standers reported the plenary guardian forcibly interfering with peaceful visitation by dragging with Mary Sykes with great force away from the premises so as to interrupt the visitation.    Previously, the plenary guardian was reported to have injured Mary’s elderly sister by another act of violence.
As Human beings – how can any of us sleep at night and no cry out in agony when we see an elderly woman treated so inhumanly?     It is terrible when a human being is trapped in his/her body by a medical accident = such as stroke and we cannot help.   But here we as human beings are watching a  bunch of miscreants ‘trap’ Mary Sykes in a nursing home or other facility and isolate her from friends, family, and her activities.    
This is a threat!    Every one of us is vulnerable.    What has happened to Mary Sykes could happen to you.    If you look at the videos of Mary Sykes in 2009 she appears and was a functioning adult.   She went to the Bank, made deposits and even noticed when the person who is now the plenary guardian removed without permission funds from the bank account.   Mary was functioning almost as well as you!     She tried to do something about a series of alleged thefts by the person who became her plenary guardian and the rest is history.      
My grandfather used to tell the story of a man in Russia who was very successful and bragged that he might die of many things but he would never starve to death.   On day as the man entered his vault, a gust of wind blew the door shut!    Days later when they noticed he was missing someone broke into the vault he was dead – he died of starvation!      
The time to act is now!
Ken Ditkowsky


From Ken Ditkowsky and Janet Phelan on Elder exploitation, abuse and cleansing

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Jun 27, 2013 2:16 PM
To: Janet Phelan , “janetclairephelan@yahoo.com”
Cc: “ACLU@ACLU.ORG” , “IllinoisLawyerNow@isba.org” , NASGA , probate sharks , JoAnne Denison , GLORIA SYKES , Kathie Bakken , Tom Kammerer , Harry Heckert , Lawrence Hyman , j ditkowsky , mary richards , mary wooley state police , matt senator kirk , Eric Holder , Martha Jantho , “IllinoisLawyerNow@isba.org” , “ildbambic@govabuse.org”
Subject: Re: California’s Public Guardians–Eager to Lock You Up

The first question that law enforcement, the ACLU, your senator et al asks is:  ” I do not want to get involved in isolated cases – do you know of any other cases.”    Translated – go away!  The GAO report to Congress is almost word for word what the article relates, but her we sit and watch Mary Sykes and other seniors being victimized by Farenga, Stern, Schmiedel et al.   We watch you (Janet) forced into exile – afraid to return to her home.   We watch any attorney who opens his mouth in protest having to fight for his/her license as the IARDC (and similar organizations) think it unethical for attorneys to speak out against elder cleansing!
From the reaction of government to ‘elder cleansing’ you would think that it and ethic cleansing are laudable occupations and attorneys who spoke out were deviants!   I wonder if the State of Illinois licenses ‘elder cleaners?’   If they took as a license 10% of the profits there would be over $100,000 + from Sykes (could be as much as $1,000,000+ if many of the coins were uncirculated and the real estate is included, $150,000 from Gore, $800,000 from Tyler etc etc.
I’e copied Attorney General Holder and Senator Kirk on this note and they now have a copy of the article.   The article fits the profile –
Ken Ditkowsky

From: Janet Phelan <writejanet@live.com>
To: “janetclairephelan@yahoo.com” <janetclairephelan@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 1:33 PM
Subject: California’s Public Guardians–Eager to Lock You Up


Thursday, June 27, 2013

California’s Public Guardians: Eager to Lock You Up and Steal Your Money

Ruth Hull
Activist Post

You’ve spent your life building up some assets and you think they are secure. Or you got an inheritance and you think it’s yours. Where there is money, there are vultures ready to steal it. Among the most dangerous vultures are Public Guardians and conservators, who are willing to lock you away to steal your money. Judges simply look the other way and give them carte blanche to do as they please with your life, your property and your future. With a stroke of the pen and the elimination of one dangerous government office, Jerry Brown could save the people of California, hundreds of millions of dollars and protect the state’s seniors, their heirs and their assets.

In Orange County, California, we have had a changing of the guard. That’s because John Williams, the last Public Guardian and Peggy Buff, his second in command, lost their positions after they got caught ripping off Orange County residents. Since Peggy Buff was the District Attorney’s fiancée, seniors were powerless to protect themselves. Williams apparently thought his sole responsibility was to grab the assets of senior citizens to help with his department’s budget shortfall. When this was exposed, the public thought they could do better.

Williams already had been twice dinged by the Grand Jury for mismanagement of funds when the truth hit the media big time. For years, Williams had been confiscating assets from rich Orange County citizens whom he felt could not handle their own money. While he grabbed their estates, these seniors were often put into low-cost sub-human facilities, places that mostly facilitated early deaths. Sometimes seniors were not even properly notified that Williams had secretly put them into conservatorships and had ripped off their assets until their associates were arrested for kidnapping for just taking them to a nearby fast food restaurant. Adult Protective Services was reportedly in on the get-rich-quick scheme too. When APS comes calling, the Public Guardian isn’t far behind. It’s all about money.
Williams met his downfall after hinting he planned to grab the assets of a Santa Ana woman, a forty-year civil servant, whose family had rescued her from a violent abuser. Williams, Adult Protective Services and the District Attorney’s office made no attempt to go after the violent abuser. They didn’t care about protecting the elderly. They just wanted their money. Deputy District Attorney Todd Spitzer made an inquiry call about the matter to the Public Guardian’s office, putting the money-grabbers into fear that he was wise to the scheme. So District Attorney Tony Rackauckas fired Spitzer and told him the reason for the termination was the inquiry call about the matter of the Santa Ana woman. Needless to say, there was a press conference and the truth came out. More and more of the Guardian’s victims flocked to the press with some pretty disturbing horror stories. In the end, Williams was not able to keep his position, and was locked out of his office. However, recent reports do indicate that the changing of the guard may have just been a superficial fix, window dressing for a corrupt system that continues to threaten the security of Orange County’s seniors.
In San Bernardino County, the Public Guardian is picking people up off the street and warehousing them. I attended a Yucaipa town hall meeting a while back where citizens who expressed concerns about the disappearances and spoke about their fears regarding what had happened to those who hadn’t resurfaced. Occasionally, the Public Guardian hits the jackpot by nabbing someone with enough money to assist with the office’s budgetary desires. Often these individuals wind up dead, like Charlie Castle. He didn’t just wind up dead. He was held for over a year against his will by the San Bernardino Public Guardian before his death. Here is a Facebook page that was started by people who were worried about him.
Then there is the Riverside County Public Guardian. International journalist and popular author Janet Phelan is trying to get some answers regarding the depletion of her mother’s trust fund. The Riverside Public Guardian Bill Vanderpoorten seems to be hiding out. He won’t answer phone calls or see members of the press at his office. The Public Guardian is paid by the public but apparently doesn’t answer to the public and doesn’t want anything to do with the public – unless maybe it’s grabbing their money. Their operations are hush hush – kind of like the operations of drug dealers, hitmen, etc. – you know, the people who have to operate in secret because they’re likely to be arrested if the public knows what they are really doing….
Among the questionable acts the Riverside Public Guardian is alleged to have committed in the Amalie Phelan Trust are the improper depletion of trust assets in violation of the trust document and the law, an uneven distribution of trust assets in violation of the trust document and the law, the pawning off of taxes on one of the beneficiaries in violation of the trust document and the law, and falsification of documents, interstate mail fraud and misstatement of wire transfer fees, all in apparent violation of the trust document and the law. Among the issues are false charges to Ms. Phelan’s account for a wire transfer from the brokerage of UBS. Though UBS charged in-country transfer fees, Attorney Toni Eggebraaten on behalf of the Riverside Public Guardian’s office pretended that the fees were out-of country and charged double. Apparently, somebody in her office or that of the Public Guardian pocketed the rest of the overcharged fees. If the Public Guardian’s office were operating in accordance with the law, they’d have nothing to hide. But they seemed pretty frightened of public scrutiny the day I showed up.

I had left numerous messages for Public Guardian Bill Vanderpoorten with no response before showing up at his office. In a booth was a woman who identified herself as Sharon but who didn’t have a last name or at least not one she would give out. She spoke over a phone to a supervisor who reportedly told her to tell me that nobody in the office would speak with the press. However, that supervisor’s name was top secret and Sharon stated that she could not provide any part of the supervisor’s name. So this person who refused a media request didn’t even have a first name. Since the only identifiable people working for the Riverside Public Guardian’s office are Bill Vanderpoorten and Sharon No-Last-Name, then theoretically that office should only receiving funding for one and a half salaries. If more has been paid, a refund should be demanded.

This writer was referred to the above-mentioned outside attorneyToni Eggebraaten, who (like Bill Vanderpoorten) does not return phone calls and who was reportedly involved in much of the above-mentioned wrongdoing.

Janet’s grievances with the system run much deeper than just the above issues. The Riverside Public Guardian’s office and the case are connected to Melodie Scott, the former conservator for Amalie Phelan. Melodie Scott has a particularly troublesome problem. It seems her wards too often drop dead, prematurely. Maybe conservatorships are not so healthy. Hint. Hint. If you want a long life and someone wants a conservatorship over you. Run. Run very fast.

Melodie Scott can be particularly scary. I tried to interview her at her home and was threatened with arrest for just knocking on the door and asking for an interview. Her son Chris chased me down the street threatening me with arrest for simply asking to speak with her. She had reportedly also threatened Janet with arrest on apparently trumped up charges as well.

Why would she be afraid of an interview? Well, when Janet’s mother Amalie was alive, Melodie reportedly withheld heart medication. Fortunately for Amalie, Janet rushed the mother to the hospital and saved her life. Unfortunately for Amalie, Melodie Scott reacted to Janet’s life-saving results by getting a restraining order to keep Janet from doing it again. Since when do conservators have the right to stop family members from saving a ward’s life? Oh, maybe it has something to do with dwindling trust funds. And surprise, surprise, while under Melodie’s care, the mother wound up dead. There should be lots of questions there.

What needs to be grasped out of this is that the whole Public Guardian system is corrupt. It’s not just corrupt in Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, but throughout the State of California.

Whenever you have a non-family member taking charge of the funds of an individual, you have a system where corruption is at a high point. There have been lots of reports of judges being paid off in the system and of people being helpless to fight an overpowering and corrupt system that is out of control. A lot of money is flowing and changing hands in these conservatorships. At least, if a person blows their own money, they have nobody except themselves to blame. But what gives a public official or a court-appointed official the right to deplete the funds of someone who doesn’t want them to control their funds?

America was built on self-determination. Seniors and others need protection from the very people who claim to be protecting them. It’s time to re-examine the whole process of conservatorships. The Public can do without Public Guardians and conservators grabbing their assets and leaving them to die in squalor. The state can do without the waste of funds going to various Public Guardians offices that terrorize the elderly without doing anything to protect their real interests.

This isn’t somebody else’s problem. One day, if you earn enough money, the Public Guardian or a conservator could be after you. Is this the future you want for yourself?

Ruth Hull is an activist and writer whose career has included work as a criminal defense attorney, a licensed private investigator, and an educator.

From Ken and Kathie, some good questions on where is Mary?

From: JoAnne M Denison <jdenison@surfree.com>
To: kenneth ditkowsky <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 11:52 AM
Subject: Re: Sylvia and Elaine–ok to publish?

okay to publish?  and I will include your comments that all AS cared about was Mary and arts and crafts and the “sign in sheet” he sidesteps the need for Mary to see Gloria and her old friends and neighbors, including me.  He also fails to acknowledge to the court that CT engaged in some serious abuse, telling Mary she would “NEVER!” see he beloved Gloria again, she grabbed her arm and tried to march her down the hall so hard, Mary cried out in pain.  She had been screaming and hollering for Gloria to leave, etc.  The staff did nothing.  I believe they were quite shocked at how furious CT was and had not seen that before.

I always saw Mary walking around the neighborhood and said “hi” to her.  She would walk by my house and the park frequently.  We all knew her.

She would sweep up leaves in the street gutters and the side walk in front of her house.

what happened to all that?


Btw, when the nice police lady said that sometimes she did “wellness” checks on Mary, I thanked her and told her she probably saved Mary’s life.

—–Original Message—–
From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Jun 27, 2013 5:43 AM
To: Kathie Bakken
Cc: j ditkowsky , Martha Jantho , JoAnne Denison , NASGA , probate sharks , Harry Heckert , matt senator kirk , Eric Holder , states attorney , rudy bush , scott evans , GLORIA SYKES , GLORIA SYKES
Subject: Re: Sylvia and Elaine

Based upon other cases that I’ve examined, It is my opinion that the move to the nursing home for Mary was the signal that the miscreants have determined that Mary is too dangerous to keep alive.   I felt this in the Jaycox case, and observed that he ‘fell out of bed’ hit is head.  Then he broke his hip.   This was followed by aspirated pneumonia.

AS waxing eloquent over how Mary was enjoying arts and crafts is a clear cover for her removal to a nursing.    home.  Since day three when the ‘gold coins’ were secured and it appeared that there would be a full court press to thwart any effort to require CT to inventory the contents of the safety deposit box I have been concerned that there might be an acceleration of Mary’s date of death.  (See Farenga letter to the IARDC and the two IARDC complaints filed against JoAnne and yours truly)  I and others who wanted justice for Mary therefore hounded the Naperville Police to do wellness checks.   Every wellness check made the miscreants Paranoid.   Kammerer is a honest cop!  I believe that he and a few of his officers harbored suspicions as to the scenario and in subtle manner gave AS, CT, CF, PS the impression that if they could prove misconduct AS, CT, CF, PS would receive equal protection of the law on a level playing field.

Thus, as Mary is now a liability – it appears from Gloria’s description that she still has her wits about her and is still a survivor.    Thus, if Mary’s demise is to be enhanced CT, AS, CF, PS must have cover.   If Mary should have a fall – Kammerer might order an investigation – everyone has watch the crime shows and watches DNA being removed from a speck of dust.  Thus, placing her in a nursing home where falls are common, and it is not uncommon for a person to die in his/her sleep, fall out of bed, break a hip, or even aspirate food.  Thus, a quick cremation and all the allegations are speculation.

The nursing home scenario falls apart if Gloria or a neighbor, a relative, or a friend visits every day.   The induced depression lessens and Mary’s cries to go home would no longer fall upon deaf ears!    Thus, the full court press to prevent Gloria and family members from visiting.    Adam Stern – who is reported to have disclosed a pecuniary interest in the “cottage industry” – apparently felt that he had to justify the incarceration of Mary in the nursing home – ergo, his telling the Court all about how wonderful it is in the nursing home.

But for the Gloria visiting her mother and giving home the ‘final solution’ was mapped out!   Now  Mary’s final reward has to be delayed.    Thus, Judge Stuart, issued orders that while appearing to provide visitation actually restore the isolation of Mary Sykes.

The Illinois Legislature tried to avoid this scenario.

Take a look at the Gore case – Bev Cooper will tell you all the details as to how allegedly Miriam Solo orchestrated the separation of her mother from a 1.5 million dollar estate etc.    This is a cottage industry that *****.

Our next step is to file as quickly as possible the Petition for a Supervisory order in the Supreme Court.   By keeping the pressure on the miscreants cannot activate their ‘final solution’ for Mary.   As it is abundantly clear that the Circuit Court had no jurisdiction the legal apparatus gives no cover to the miscreants and no matter how much clout they have or who is their clout – juries are going to decide their fate!

Ken Ditkowsky

From: Kathie Bakken <k_bakken@att.net>
To: kenneth ditkowsky <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 10:46 PM
Subject: Re: Sylvia and Elaine
I’m must be dense, I don’t get the arts & crafts, unless he’s trying to imply that Aunt is only capable of ‘basket weaving’, or the like.  Am I on the right track?

Fax to Hon. Judge Tim Evans–rule banning smart phones/tablets/laptops a DISASTER

TO Denison & Assocs, PC
COMPANY Denison & Assocs, PC
F~XNUMBER 13123768842
FRO~I Denison & Assocs, PC
DATE 2013-06-26 16:12:26 GMT
RE Banning of smart phones, tablets, laptops
Dear Judge Evans;
It has come to my attention that the banning of cell
phones, laptops and smart phones has become an unmitigated
disaster in the court rooms.
Previously, people sat and texted quietly.
Now, in packed court rooms, people are talking, whispering
and the noise level is continually distracting to the
attorneys, court staff and judges. The court rooms are
large. There is only one bailiff. If s/he stops a
converation in one corner, there are at least a dozen
others going on. Same thing in the hallways. People are
now doing yakety yak allover and it is extremely
Please immediately reconsider this “ban”. Encourage
people to USE their cell phones, PDAs, tablets and laptops
to communicate instead and INSTALL WI FI, like the federal
courts have.
Like Prohibition in the 20’s this is a similar disaster.
JoAnne Denison
cc: http://www.MaryGSykes.com

Yeah! Gloria gets to visit with her mother for an HOUR and does NOT get arrested.

In all of this tied in stuff, I have to consider that a win and a close call:

On June 22, 2013 at approximately 4 pm, the family and friends of 94 and a half year old Mary G. Sykes (“MGS”), formerly of 6014 N. Avondale Avenue in Chicago, Illinois 60631 determined that she had been placed in a nursing home called Sunset on Odgen Avenue in Naperville by Ms. Carolyn Toerpe (“CT”).  Ms. Toerpe is a guardian under “color of authority” who has strenuously isolated Mary Sykes from her family and friends since fall of 2009.  None of these persons had seen Mary for several years, despite repeated attempts to do so. (The lack of service is published frequently on this blog with supporting document and the Record on Appeal).

CT did not have any court order to place MGS in this nursing facility.  A duly appointed guardian would have first sought a court order before engaging in such a placement.  As far as Judge Stuart is aware (case 09 P 4585 in Cook County Probate Court), MGS is supposed to be residing at 523 Grimes in Naperville, Illinois, a home environment.    A properly run nursing home would check for duly issued Letters of Office from any person purporting to be guardian, as well as a Court Order for the placement.  Since fall of 2009, CT has strenuously isolated Mary from her close friends and family, in particular, the younger daughter Gloria who was a 10 year+ excellent caretaker of Mary.  Mary and Gloria had been inseparable during those years and were always together.

After Gloria had determined that Mary was at Sunset she asked to speak to her mother, Mary.  Mary was put on the phone and while she had trouble hearing (Mary requires an amplified phone due to hearing loss), she quickly determined it was Gloria and asked how soon could she come to see her?  Gloria went out right away to the nursing home.

When Mary first saw     Gloria she grabbed her and repeatedly hugged and kissed her and exclaimed openly how elated she was to finally have her Gloria back.  Mary said “I knew you would come for me and take me home, when can we go?”  Gloria replied, “mom we have to sit down and talk about that” and we moved to the dining area and Gloria gently explained that it can’t happen right now, but she was “working on it.”  The pair kissed and hugged a hundred times for about a half hour, and a video was made of the even for Gloria and friends, and esp. an elderly sister Yolanda (who is also about the same age as Mary) to watch later.  Yolanda is now quite sick and bedridden and/or housebound.

Nonetheless, after spending a peaceful hour or so visiting with Mary, CT arrived on the scene, screaching and yelling that Gloria Sykes, Mary’s younger daughter had to leave.  When Mary first saw Carolyn, she exclaimed “how wonderful, both my girls are here.”  Carolyn then shouted to Gloria to “get out, you have to get out of here”.  Mary then cried “but when can Gloria come back to see me?”, CT shouted at her “NEVER!”, at which point Mary started to get upset.  Carolyn did not comfort Mary, but continued her tirade that Gloria and friends were not supposed to be there and had to leave immediately. CT grabbed Mary with such force by the arm, Mary cried out “ouch, ouch, that hurts, you’re hurting me”, at which time CT forced Mary in front of her, pushing in the back all the way down the hall to a closed room.  CT approached Mary furious, and continued in that manner at all times she was seen at the nursing facility, and in particular in the presence of Mary.

During the altercation, at one point, it looked like Carolyn was going to harm someone, and one of the friends Scott Evans held her back until she promised to stop.

This did not keep CT from later abusing Mary by holding her firmly and then pushing her down the hall in the small of her back repeatedly.

The police were called, and both Gloria and her friends confirmed there were no orders in place to prevent anyone from visiting.  Also, it was mentioned that the probate court was without jurisdiction, that the matter was up on appeal and Mary was never served with a summons and complaint, but none of the police officers seemed to care.

On the way out, down at Gloria’s car, an Officer Krakow came up to me and asked if I took pictures or video.  I told him yes.  He said I would have to delete it.  I told him I did not want to, it was precious and not replaceable.  It was in fact, my personal property.  Mary had authorized it.  I asked her first.  I always ask permission.

He replied that the nursing home had “rules” and one “rule was no pictures or video taping” so I had to delete it. I told him that was destruction of my personal property and it was illegal.

He said it was not.  (See ACLU webpage on police and photography–

http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/know-your-rights-photographers (thank you Katie Bakken for this noted)

He then threatened to “take me in” if I “did not cooperate” so I deleted this precious video.

He also asked Scott Evans to delete his video.

Gloria was not asked.

Of course, the visit was capped off with the nice Officer telling us all that we were banned from the property and if we came back we would be immediately arrested for trespassing.

I reminded him that was not the law, if Mary wanted to see us, she could see any of us.  He replied, “what is with you guys and the law?”  I told him I thought police officers took an oath to uphold the laws, and the US and Illinois constitutions.

I do believe that these officers need to retake their oaths of office and should be reminded that their job really is to enforce the laws and the US and Illinois constitution — not create situations which clearly violate long established constitutional rights, but I digress.

They should further be trained in elder abuse and exploitation and to recognize all the symptoms (anger in presence of a disabled, pushing and shoving, screaming that a family member will “never” be allowed to visit, reluctance to comfort and assure the disable everything is all right, etc.)  Such a person should be immediately separated from the disabled person and further investigated for abuse.

Instead, the employees at Sunset stood by and said and did nothing other than to evict the good and concerned family members and friends.

They did not tell CT that shouting and screaming near Mary was abusive.  They did not tell CT that saying a beloved daughter that Gloria could not visit Mary was abusive.  They did not stop CT from grabbing Mary’s hand and pulling her from Gloria until she cried out in pain was abusive.

They did not tell the officers that CT abused Mary.

How awful.

Who stands by when this happens?

As in the Wyman case, ban the good family members, the ones that care, the ones that squawk when there is abuse.  As in Wyman, the family member is then further isolated and abused.  In Wyman, the mother was left near death when she finally escaped, a victim of severe physical abuse and beatings and sexual abuse at the nursing home. (See findings of abuse by Illinois Dept of Health published elsewhere on this website).

Let the tough, cold control freak family member gain control, grab, push and shove the disabled until she is in pain physically and emotionally and say nothing. Do nothing.

It’s easier.  But, can you really sleep at night?

Corrections from Gloria:

It’s sunrise senior living LLC

Carolyn never agreed to stop the bulking (grabbing?) and I [in fact] fact pushed Scott back and grabbed [Carolyn away when] mother cried that Toerpe was hurting her.
At all times mother was calm until Toerpe grabbed her by the wrist and hauled her off into another room and that’s when mother cried out “don’t take me away from my gloria again”.

Then, like in a breath, mother so afraid of Toerpe, told Toerpe again she wanted to be with Gloria.

The staff of the assisted living stood by and watched as Toerpe abused my mother and did nothing.

The cops spoke with Adam Stern (the court appointed Guardian ad Litem that comes from a “secret list”) after you and scott and Doris left and falsely held me in custody trying to bully me into telling [the police] how or who told me where my mother was. (Duh, the house was sold, no one had seen Mary at Carolyn’s house in weeks–takes an idiot in these case to figure out SHE’S STUFFED IN A NURSING HOME SOMEPLACE, JUST CALL A FEW).  Are cops really that brain dead?  Did not Sergent Kammerer, ahem, Commander Kammerer tell everyone about this crazy case?

I just said that the cook county states attorneys office told me that if my mother wants to see me no person on earth could stop the visit: the Illinois department on Aging told me the same

This a a brutal scene of harassment and abuse against my mother who is alive today because she prays that one day soon I will come to her rescue and set her free
and the law.

The police officer did NOT like when we mentioned the law.  He liked the comfort of “rules” from the nursing home.

AND, since the Naperville police apparently do NOT like following the law, here it is:
§ 2-108. Every resident shall be permitted unimpeded, private and uncensored communication of his choice by mail, public telephone or visitation.
(a) The administrator shall ensure that correspondence is conveniently received and mailed, and that telephones are reasonably accessible.
(b) The administrator shall ensure that residents may have private visits at any reasonable hour unless such visits are not medically advisable for the resident as documented in the resident’s clinical record by the resident’s physician.
(c) The administrator shall ensure that space for visits is available and that facility personnel knock, except in an emergency, before entering any resident’s room.
(d) Unimpeded, private and uncensored communication by mail, public telephone and visitation may be reasonably restricted by a physician only in order to protect the resident or others from harm, harassment or intimidation, provided that the reason for any such restriction is placed in the resident’s clinical record by the physician and that notice of such restriction shall be given to all residents upon admission. However, all letters addressed by a resident to the Governor, members of the General Assembly, Attorney General, judges, state’s attorneys, officers of the Department, or licensed attorneys at law shall be forwarded at once to the persons to whom they are addressed without examination by facility personnel. Letters in reply from the officials and attorneys mentioned above shall be delivered to the recipient without examination by facility personnel.
(e) The administrator shall ensure that married residents residing in the same facility be allowed to reside in the same room within the facility unless there is no room available in the facility or it is deemed medically inadvisable by the residents’ attending physician and so documented in the residents’ medical records.

210 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 45/2-108 (West)

Ken Ditkowsky


THE FIRST AMENDMENT (contrary to the opinion of the IARDC and attorneys who are ignorant of the Constitution) protects your right to publish your opinion and your findings.    47 USCA 230 grants immunity to blog publishers.    Nursing home residents are not supposed to be placed in a private jail.    The statute is very specific in its statement: 
2-108. Every resident shall be permitted unimpeded, private and uncensored communication of his choice by mail, public telephone or visitation.  210 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 45/2-108 (West)
 I do not see any words and phrases that give Adam Stern the right to impede the statutory rights.
Ken Ditkowsky


From Ken Ditkowsky

From: kenneth ditkowsky <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>
Subject: Fw: Murder case and HELP_with Bar Complaint – PLEASE READ THIS
To: “matt senator kirk” <matt_abbott@kirk.senate.gov>, “Eric Holder” <askdoj@usdoj.gov>, “IllinoisLawyerNow@isba.org” <IllinoisLawyerNow@isba.org>
Cc: “Chicago Tribune” <tips@tribune.com>, “SUNTIMES” <letters@suntimes.com>, “prov2828@hotmail.com” <prov2828@hotmail.com>, “RudekSylvia@gmail.com” <RudekSylvia@gmail.com>, “rudy bush” <wmrcls@hotmail.com>
Date: Friday, June 21, 2013, 10:07 AM

From all over the United States of America these letter come in to the various web-sites and also to my e-mail.
All that we are asking for that there be an HONEST complete and comprehensive investigation of these cases.   The GAO filed a report to Congress that seems to have been virtually ignored, several family members of victims have written books trying to get an investigation.   There have been marches, letters, and all sorts of appeals ALL TO DEAF EARS to the problem.   The typical response is for the State Attorney Registration and Discipline Commission to charge the the allegations are untrue – even when the common law record and affidavits support 100% the allegations.    The State regulators then determine after a ‘hearing’ that the statements are untrue and the lawyer who protests the criminal activity of the court protected miscreants is punished.
The victims and their family are persecuted and frustrated as their rights as citizens of the United States are trampled.    The elderly victim in many of the cases appears to have an accelerated death and immediate cremation.    Large estates are reduced to pennies and in the Gore case an outraged family claims that ‘mother’ (Alice Gore) after her 1.5 million dollar estate was reduced to zero had her Au filings removed.  These pieces of Au (gold) were never inventoried!
Yes, I sound like a broken record but Democracy is not a spectator sport and how does a human being stand silent when he watches 1936 arrive from Germany and take up residence in the United States!     If Ms. Miller’s cries were the only cries being heard maybe a little cotton in our respective ears would be justified; however, from the West Ms. Phelan echos a similar story.    From the Colorado Mr. Bush has the same tale to relate.    From Arizona Attorney Grant Goodman relates his clients tale of woe as he is being persecuted by the authorities for speaking out.      Here in Illinois Ms. Dension and I have been vocal concerning the Mary Sykes case and our First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights have been unilaterally forfeited by the Illinois ARDC.    Apparently we offended Attorney Cynthia Farenga and Attorney Adam Stern by pointing to the statute book and in particular 755 ILCS 5/11a -10 (and a couple of cases) and stating accurately that there is no documentary evidence in the Court record that establishes that the required steps for jurisdiction to be vested in the Circuit Court ever occurred.      [the IARDC appears to acknowledge this fact – however, clairvoyantly claims that the persons entitled to notice had “knowledge” and therefore the statute could be ignored.   I use the word clarivoyant as the persons who should have received notice claim not to have received the required prior notice.    To be fair the IARDC does not claim that prior knowledge existed.    It is quite obvious that four years later Mary Sykes’ two sisters and her younger daughter are quite aware of the date, time, and place of whatever hearing, if any, was held!)
Once again – do not take our word for anything.    Have someone do an Honest complete, and comprehensive investigation.    I use the word honest as an investigation of the Miller, Sykes, Bush, et al cases conducted in the United Kingdom will not substantiate a single statement that has been made by the victims.    Even North Korean records will not help.    The investigation claimed by Adam Stern of the Au (gold) coins is an oxymoron.   Rather than interview people who had knowledge of the contents of the Mary and Gloria’s safety deposit box her claimed to subpoenaed the Bank that housed the safety deposit box.    As the Bank, the Prime Minister of England, President Obama, and Queen Victoria had no knowledge of the content of the safety deposit box, Mr. Stern was able to report that he could not determine that there was a single gold coin the the safety box that the plenary guardian (appointed by a court lacking jurisdiction) had drilled.    Ergo, the reports of hundreds of uninventoried gold coins in his opinion was false!
The foregoing is what the victims have received from the 2nd oldest profession as justice.     HOW COULD THIS ALL HAVE HAPPENED IN AMERICA.   WHY ARE THE VICTIMS OF ELDER CLEANSING, a/k/a Elder abuse/Financial Exploitation treated so terribly!    Why is it unethical for Attorneys to bring this to public attention?
Ken Ditkowsky


And for full disclosure of the system, the machine, whatever.

As many of you know, we have been waiting for the last piece of the puzzle in Chicago.  Apparently Gloria has found it.

So here is the entire system:

Apparently what is going on is:  Judges get campaign contributions from whomever benefits from the system–the probate attorneys, doctors that declare everyone incompetent (Rabin, Amdur, Shaw and others), then there are the “secret” lists of GAL’s, tied in services providers–case managers, case supervisors, nurses, nursing homes, etc.  Go ahead, I dare you to go to the receptionist on the 18th floor of the Daley center and get a list from ANYONE there.  The people on the lists–probate attorneys (victims call them goons and thugs), social workers (victims call them anti social workers), the doctors called PsychD’s  and psychiatrists (the victims call them psychotic psychiatrists)–are all secret, unrated, there is no cost estimate given up front and  there sure aren’t any laptops, tablets or smart phones in that court room to check ratings and investigate on Google because the best guardian or POA is an ignorant one when it comes to cost containment of any given estate. ahem, victim.

The judge declares a person with a bank account and a paid up home incompetent.  The person is placed in a nursing home where they will quickly die. It is well known the average 80 year old senior at home can live another 5 years, but one in a nursing home lives only about a year.  Why?  Isolation, change of environment, not what the senior wanted, drugging with psychotropic drugs (illegal) against the senior’s will, bad cheap food, you name it, it isn’t going to be Whole Foods, that’s for sure.  If anyone in the family squawks, the senior is placed in a locked down facility and isolated. The family member is discredited and deemed “irrational”, “trooublesome”, whatever, to ban them from investigating.  If the senior squawks, they are shot up with psychotropic drugs so they are not trouble at the facility or an embarrassment.  Most seniors at a nursing home cry to go back to their own homes.  Most are not told those homes were sold to pay for the nursing home.

The campaign funding can be done directly to a big wig politician or thru your local alderman. The campaign contributions are passed up the system into the hands of others as a “fee”.  The Blago sell a senate seat system–the “belly up to the bar” system.  Any campaign contrib is greatly appreciated and well acknowledged, esp. when it is accompanied by a request for a particular “need.”

In Chicago, it’s all apparently also tied into the zoning board. The senior is declared incompetent, placed in a nursing home, tied in realtors, friends of the zoning board get into the deal and sell the home as “estate sale” and for a discount.  The probate court will approve a court order for as little as 60% of the appraised value.  That goes to a straw man and the deal is flipped down the road for a good VIG,

Why am I not surprised I am told Gloria when she was snooping around the sale of her mother’s home for a deep discount, she got a call from a Richard Mell, Realtor, but not “the” Richard Mell alderman and he was clear to make that distinction, and insist the sale was fair.

In this case, the probate court did not authorize the sale, because the home is allegedly in trust.  BUT the terms of the trust are clear Mary had to be declared incompetent by her own personal physician, and that doctor, Dr. Patel would not do that, so Judge Connors told Atty Waller to “get another doctor” (ie, endorse doctor shopping, as Ken noted–good catch Ken). (See transcript on this blog)

So Richard Mell, Jr. insisted a sale was “fair” in Chicago in the Norwood Park area for a lot of 125 by 425′ or thereabouts in a premium neighborhood for $238,000.  Just research it yourself.

Okay so we have 2 degrees of separation between the Chicago Zoning Board and Alderman Mell and the Sykes home.  What about Stuart, any link there?

And according to http://www.wnd.com/2011/04/289501/, Stuart’s name is on the title of the home to the Obama estate.  As you might recall, Rezko bought the lot next door to Obama for $625,000 and then sold a strip of land to Mr. Obama for $104,000 so as to enlarge the back yard (for a pool, playhouse?)  Okay,explains all that.  She literally owns the butt of the president.  How convenient.

And Ken emails US AG Eric Holder regularly, why isn’t HE doing anything about all this (lack of service upon Mary Sykes, etc.).  Well, apparently, he was once in house counsel at a certain investment banking firm.  The owner was experiencing financial troubles and started taking principal of the investors to make ends meet, which is a big huge no-no, so the US senate take offense at the implosion of the company and loss of millions, and recommends indictment.  A grand jury is assembled and agrees and recommends prosecution. But the buck stops there.  Who in their right mind prosecutes a former boss?  And if you won’t prosecute that, why would you go after a probate court that has judges that literally own the butt of the president?

see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/06/eric-holder-banks-too-big_n_2821741.html where USAG Holder asserts he just can’t prosecute some really, really large banks.

another “can’t do it” article:


I don’t really get it, I can take on and blog about the machine in probate, but AG Eric Holder can’t and won’t do it?  Wait, let me pass him my spine.  It’s been used a lot and it’s tough.  I’ll go out and buy a titanium one, thank you.  Direct this man to a spine shop, please

For that act of bravery and loyalty, Eric Holder is promoted to US Atty General.

Because Judge Connors doesn’t understand jurisdiction and declares Mary incompetent, denies Gloria any discovery, she is promoted to the 2nd District Court of appeals.

As for me, I’d rather be a broke, cold in winter, hot in summer, starving atty that get my butt involved in any of this–other than as a blogger.

I’d like to go home with my tail feathers.

Thanks goodness for me and Google.

Google you rock!


PS–John Howard Wyman tells me it’s the same in Rockford.  Big surprise.


PPS–and PLEASE leave my car alone this time and Ken’s too.  Don’t bother with the tail light shootings, the sugar in the gas, the cut cable to the parking break.  None of us are interested.




Citizens United and Free Speech–the whole story.

Citizens United v. the Federal Election Board:

I have wanted to post about this case for awhile, and Ken has written on it, but if you all know me, I’m not going to comment on a case about a movie I have not seen.

The Supremes even called the movie “pejorative” so you know it even raised their eyebrows.

Let me shorten the movie in question for you, and I’m going to pick up the thematic phrases from about 30+ conservatives and Republicans appearing in the movie, most of whom are journalists, fund raisers, novelists, authors and the like. Most aren’t lawyers or even politicians.

Here is the cliff notes and the theme statements from it spoken by the conservatives involved in the movie’s production regarding Hillary Clinton:

Lies, deception, crime, malfeasance, psychopath, whitewater lies, obstruction of justice, perjury, forgetting shredding documents during grand jury was perjury, campaign fraud, power hungry, power obsessed, no veracity, created web of deception, acts thru cronies, obstructs justice, venal, vindictive, sneaky liar, she scares the hell out of people, lies under oath, power hungry, insecure, arrogant, air of superiority over others, she and her husband are narcissists, ruthless, cunning, dishonest, willing to do anything for power, GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY, engages in skulduggery, malfeasance, she destroys people, Machiavellian, destroys others for personal gain, evil, lying, escaping culpability for her actions, the evil equivalent to Nixon, engaged in routine campaign funding fraud (she was once fined $35,000 for campaign funding violations and paid the fine–the movie implies it is ongoing and deeply embedded in all her campaigning activities), she has a mastery of the black arts of politics, always actively covering up her husband’s affairs with threats, intimidation, IRS audits, laundered money frequently via her campaign, illegal campaign contributions, campaign funds not reported, campaign expenses under reported, she is the worst European Socialist, she was involved in Samuel L Berger’s trip to the National Archives to steal DVD’s and destroy them and stuff them in his socks, sleezy law breaker, the Clinton Library has only released .5% of records from Clinton White House years with no excuse and 300 FOIA’s pending, her husband pardoned the FALN members, (“free Puerto Rico fully bombing organization), “dangerous to our values”, prevented the movie “road to 9/11″ to be shown (Yet I found it easily on Netflix today, together with its sequel “Preventing the Road to 9/11 movie”) –you get the picture.  One hour of trash talk.  Most of the accusations are based upon vague threats, anonymous phone calls and tips, etc.  Apparently this group of conservatives eats that stuff up.  I can read the Enquirer for that–Hillary pregnant by two headed space alien–and it would be entirely more fun reading.

From the root directory of the movie come these labels: “Politics of personal destruction”, “dirty money”, “path to 9/11″, “anything for power”

Funniest part of the movie?  Showing John Edwards in juxtaposition to her speeches on health care, the military, creating jobs, etc.   John Edwards was the hero of this movie.  I guess in hindsight he wasn’t in fact such a good hero for the movie to counter Hillary.

Attorneys involved in the movie?  Michael Boos, Esquire, a North Virginia Atty, Mark Levin, a lawyer, Ann Coulter, a lawyer (didn’t know that), Kate O’Beirne (maybe a lawyer-she went to law school).  Their names as lawyers are on this movie.  Maybe Cynthia Farenga and Adam Stern should use their Himmel duties to prevent such trash talk.

Oh, that’s right, the US Supremes never said  “investgate these lawyers”. Not in the main opinion, not in the other opinions, concurring and dissenting.     This is despite the fact that the above paragraph of scurrilous and scathing talk clearly brings the law and lawyers into disrepute–according only to the ARDC.

Actually what the case was about was the release of the movie for “pay per view” on cable and there was an election law that said you couldn’t release such politically based movies 30 days before or after an election.  The US Supreme Ct (SCOTUS) struck that down as infringing the First Amendment rights.

In fact what the US Supremes said about Citizens United and their complete “trash talk about Hillary” was the following:

They noted the district court held that § 441b was facially constitutional under McConnell, and that § 441b was constitutional as applied to Hillary because it was “susceptible of no other interpretation than to inform the electorate that Senator Clinton is unfit for office, that the United States would be a dangerous place in a President Hillary Clinton world, and that viewers should vote against her.”

The law involved, was actually complex, confusing and required extensive analysis of what could or could not be shown right before or after an election.

First Amendment does not permit laws that force speakers to retain a campaign finance attorney, conduct demographic marketing research, or seek declaratory rulings before discussing the most salient political issues of our day. Prolix laws chill speech for the same reason that vague laws chill speech: People “of common intelligence must necessarily guess at [the law’s] meaning and differ as to its application.” Connally v. General Constr. Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391, 46 S.Ct. 126, 70 L.Ed. 322 (1926). The Government may not render a ban on political speech constitutional by carving out a limited exemption through an amorphous regulatory interpretation. We must reject the approach suggested by the amici. Section 441b covers Hillary.

Citizens United argues that Hillary is just “a documentary film that examines certain historical events.” Brief for Appellant 35. We disagree. The movie’s consistent emphasis is on the relevance of these events to Senator Clinton’s candidacy for President. The narrator begins by asking “could [Senator Clinton] become the first female President in the history of the United States?” App. 35a. And the narrator reiterates the movie’s message in his closing line: “Finally, before America decides on our next president, voters should need no reminders of … what’s at stake—the well being and prosperity of our nation.” Id., at 144a-145a.
As the District Court found, there is no reasonable interpretation of Hillary other than as an appeal to vote against Senator Clinton.

While some means of communication may be less effective than others at influencing the public in different contexts, any effort by the Judiciary to decide which means of communications are to be preferred for the particular type of message and speaker would raise questions as to the courts’ own lawful authority. Substantial questions would arise if courts were to begin saying what means of speech should be preferred or disfavored. And in all events, those differentiations might soon prove to be irrelevant or outdated by technologies that are in rapid flux. See Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622, 639, 114 S.Ct. 2445, 129 L.Ed.2d 497 (1994).

Courts, too, are bound by the First Amendment. We must decline to draw, and then redraw, constitutional lines based on the particular media or technology used to disseminate political speech from a particular speaker. It must be noted, moreover, that this undertaking would require substantial litigation over an extended time, all to interpret a law that beyond doubt discloses serious First Amendment flaws. The interpretive process itself would create an inevitable, pervasive, and serious risk of chilling protected speech pending the drawing of fine distinctions that, in the end, would themselves be questionable. First Amendment standards, however, “must give the benefit of any doubt to protecting rather than stifling speech.” WRTL, 551 U.S., at 469, 127 S.Ct. 2652 (opinion of ROBERTS, C.J.) (citing New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 269-270, 84 S.Ct. 710,

Next, the Government argued that it could meet a “de minimis” standard to show the law is valid.  But SCOTUS replied:

As the Government stated, this case “would require a remand” to apply a de minimis standard. Tr. of Oral Arg. 39 (Sept. 9, 2009). Applying this standard would thus require case-by-case determinations. But archetypical political speech would be chilled in the meantime. “`First Amendment freedoms need breathing space to survive.’ ” WRTL, supra, at 468-469, 127 S.Ct. 2652 (opinion of ROBERTS, C.J.) (quoting NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 433, 83 S.Ct. 328, 9 L.Ed.2d 405 (1963)). We decline to adopt an interpretation that requires intricate case-by-case determinations to verify whether political speech is banned, especially if we are convinced that, in the end, this corporation has a constitutional right to speak on this subject.

As the foregoing analysis confirms, the Court cannot resolve this case on a narrower ground without chilling political speech, speech that is central to the meaning and purpose of the First Amendment. See Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393, 403, 127 S.Ct. 2618, 168 L.Ed.2d 290 (2007). It is not judicial restraint to accept an unsound, narrow argument just so the Court can avoid another argument with broader implications. Indeed, a court would be remiss in performing its duties were it to accept an unsound principle merely to avoid the necessity of making a broader ruling. Here, the lack of a valid basis for an alternative ruling requires full consideration of the continuing effect of the speech suppression upheld in Austin.

Second, throughout the litigation, Citizens United has asserted a claim that the FEC has violated its First Amendment right to free speech. All concede that this claim is properly before us. And “`[o]nce a federal claim is properly presented, a party can make any argument in support of that claim; parties are not limited to the precise arguments they made below.'” Lebron, supra, at 379, 115 S.Ct. 961 (quoting Yee v. Escondido, 503 U.S. 519, 534, 112 S.Ct. 1522, 118 L.Ed.2d 153 (1992); alteration in original)

on page 894 SCOTUS notes that the record was long and burdensome–over 100,000 pages–regarding free speech.

They note then that: Second, substantial time would be required to bring clarity to the application of the statutory provision on these points in order to avoid any chilling effect caused by some improper interpretation. See Part II-C, supra. It is well known that the public begins to concentrate on elections only in the weeks immediately before they are held. There are short timeframes in which speech can have influence. The need or relevance of the speech will often first be apparent at this stage in the campaign. The decision to speak is made in the heat of political campaigns, when speakers react to messages conveyed by others. A speaker’s ability to engage in political speech that could have a chance of persuading voters is stifled if the speaker must first commence a protracted lawsuit. By the time the lawsuit concludes, the election will be over and the litigants in most cases will have neither the incentive nor, perhaps, the resources to carry on, even if they could establish that the case is not moot because the issue is “capable of repetition, yet evading review.” WRTL, supra, at 462, 126 S.Ct. 1016 (opinion of ROBERTS, C.J.) (citing Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 109, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 75 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983); Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. ICC, 219 U.S. 498, 515, 31 S.Ct. 279, 55 L.Ed. 310 (1911)).

As a practical matter, however, given the complexity of the regulations and the deference courts show to administrative determinations, a speaker who wants to avoid threats of criminal liability and the heavy costs of defending against FEC enforcement must ask a governmental agency for prior permission to speak. See 2 U.S.C. § 437f; 11 CFR § 112.1. These onerous
[130 S.Ct. 896]
restrictions thus function as the equivalent of prior restraint by giving the FEC power analogous to licensing laws implemented in 16th- and 17th-century England, laws and governmental practices of the sort that the First Amendment was drawn to prohibit. See Thomas v. Chicago Park Dist., 534 U.S. 316, 320, 122 S.Ct. 775, 151 L.Ed.2d 783 (2002); Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U.S. 444, 451-452, 58 S.Ct. 666, 82 L.Ed. 949 (1938); Near, supra, at 713-714, 51 S.Ct. 625. Because the FEC’s “business is to censor, there inheres the danger that [it] may well be less responsive than a court—part of an independent branch of government—to the constitutionally protected interests in free expression. “Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51, 57-58, 85 S.Ct. 734, 13 L.Ed.2d 649 (1965). When the FEC issues advisory opinions that prohibit speech, “[m]any persons, rather than undertake the considerable burden (and sometimes risk) of vindicating their rights through case-by-case litigation, will choose simply to abstain from protected speech—harming not only themselves but society as a whole, which is deprived of an uninhibited marketplace of ideas.” Virginia v. Hicks, 539 U.S. 113, 119, 123 S.Ct. 2191, 156 L.Ed.2d 148 (2003) (citation omitted). Consequently, “the censor’s determination may in practice be final.” Freedman, supra, at 58, 85 S.Ct. 734.

If parties want to avoid litigation and the possibility of civil and criminal penalties, they must either refrain from speaking or ask the FEC to issue an advisory opinion approving of the political speech in question. Government officials pore over each word of a text to see if, in their judgment, it accords with the 11-factor test they have promulgated. This is an unprecedented governmental intervention into the realm of speech.

The ongoing chill upon speech that is beyond all doubt protected makes it necessary in this case to invoke the earlier precedents that a statute which chills speech can and must be invalidated where its facial invalidity has been demonstrated. See WRTL, supra, at 482-483, 127 S.Ct. 2652 (ALITO, J., concurring); Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88, 97-98, 60 S.Ct. 736, 84 L.Ed. 1093 (1940). For these reasons we find it necessary to reconsider Austin

The law before us is an outright ban, backed by criminal sanctions. Section 441b makes it a felony for all corporations—including nonprofit advocacy corporations—either to expressly advocate the election or defeat of candidates or to broadcast electioneering communications within 30 days of a primary election and 60 days of a general election. Thus, the following acts would all be felonies under § 441b: The Sierra Club runs an ad, within the crucial phase of 60 days before the general election, that exhorts the public to disapprove of a Congressman who favors logging in national forests; the National Rifle Association publishes a book urging the public to vote for the challenger because the incumbent U.S. Senator supports a handgun ban; and the American Civil Liberties Union creates a Web site telling the public to vote for a Presidential candidate in light of that candidate’s defense of free speech. These prohibitions are classic examples of censorship.Section 441b’s prohibition on corporate independent expenditures is thus a ban on speech. As a “restriction on the amount of money a person or group can spend on political communication during a campaign,” that statute “necessarily reduces the quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration, and the size of the audience reached.” Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 19, 96 S.Ct. 612, 46 L.Ed.2d 659 (1976) (per curiam). Were the Court to uphold these restrictions, the Government could repress speech by silencing certain voices at any of the various points in the speech process. See McConnell, supra, at 251,124 S.Ct. 619 (opinion of SCALIA, J.) (Government could repress speech by “attacking all levels of the production and dissemination of ideas,” for “effective public communication requires the speaker to make use of the services of others”). If § 441b applied to individuals, no one would believe that it is merely a time, place, or manner restriction on speech. Its purpose and effect are to silence entities whose voices the Government deems to be suspect.
Speech is an essential mechanism of democracy, for it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people. See Buckley, supra, at 14-15, 96 S.Ct. 612 (“In a republic where the people are sovereign, the ability of the citizenry to make informed choices among candidates for office is essential”). The right of citizens to inquire, to hear, to speak, and to use information to reach consensus is a precondition to enlightened self-government and a necessary means to protect it. The First Amendment “`has its fullest and most urgent application’ to speech uttered during a campaign for political office.” Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Central Comm., 489 U.S. 214, 223, 109 S.Ct. 1013, 103 L.Ed.2d 271 (1989) (quoting Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U.S. 265, 272, 91 S.Ct. 621, 28 L.Ed.2d 35 (1971)); see Buckley, supra, at 14, 96 S.Ct. 612 (“Discussion of public issues and debate on the qualifications of candidates are integral to the operation of the system of government established by our Constitution”).
For these reasons, political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it, whether by design or inadvertence. Laws that burden political speech are “subject to strict scrutiny,” which requires the Government to prove that the restriction “furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.” WRTL, 551 U.S., at 464, 127 S.Ct. 2652 (opinion of ROBERTS, C.J.). While it might be maintained that political speech simply cannot be banned or restricted as a categorical matter, see Simon & Schuster, 502 U.S., at 124, 112 S.Ct. 501 (KENNEDY, J., concurring in judgment), the quoted language from WRTL provides a sufficient framework for protecting the relevant First Amendment interests in this case. We shall employ it here.
Premised on mistrust of governmental power, the First Amendment stands against attempts to disfavor certain subjects or viewpoints. See, e.g., United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc., 529 U.S. 803, 813, 120 S.Ct. 1878, 146 L.Ed.2d 865 (2000) (striking down content-based restriction). Prohibited, too, are restrictions distinguishing among different speakers, allowing speech by some but not others. See [130 S.Ct. 899] Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 784, 98 S.Ct. 1407, 55 L.Ed.2d 707 (1978). As instruments to censor, these categories are interrelated: Speech restrictions based on the identity of the speaker are all too often simply a means to control content.
Quite apart from the purpose or effect of regulating content, moreover, the Government may commit a constitutional wrong when by law it identifies certain preferred speakers. By taking the right to speak from some and giving it to others, the Government deprives the disadvantaged person or class of the right to use speech to strive to establish worth, standing, and respect for the speaker’s voice. The Government may not by these means deprive the public of the right and privilege to determine for itself what speech and speakers are worthy of consideration. The First Amendment protects speech and speaker, and the ideas that flow from each.
The Court has upheld a narrow class of speech restrictions that operate to the disadvantage of certain persons, but these rulings were based on an interest in allowing governmental entities to perform their functions. See, e.g., Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675, 683, 106 S.Ct. 3159, 92 L.Ed.2d 549 (1986)(protecting the “function of public school education”); Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners’ Labor Union, Inc., 433 U.S. 119, 129, 97 S.Ct. 2532, 53 L.Ed.2d 629 (1977) (furthering “the legitimate penological objectives of the corrections system” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733, 759, 94 S.Ct. 2547, 41 L.Ed.2d 439 (1974) (ensuring “the capacity of the Government to discharge its [military] responsibilities” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Civil Service Comm’n v. Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. 548, 557, 93 S.Ct. 2880, 37 L.Ed.2d 796 (1973)(“[F]ederal service should depend upon meritorious performance rather than political service”). The corporate independent expenditures at issue in this case, however, would not interfere with governmental functions, so these cases are inapposite.

Section 441b’s prohibition on corporate independent expenditures is thus a ban on speech. As a “restriction on the amount of money a person or group can spend on political communication during a campaign,” that statute “necessarily reduces the quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration, and the size of the audience reached.” Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 19, 96 S.Ct. 612, 46 L.Ed.2d 659 (1976) (per curiam). Were the Court to uphold these restrictions, the Government could repress speech by silencing certain voices at any of the various points in the speech process. See McConnell, supra, at 251,124 S.Ct. 619 (opinion of SCALIA, J.) (Government could repress speech by “attacking all levels of the production and dissemination of ideas,” for “effective public communication requires the speaker to make use of the services of others”). If § 441b applied to individuals, no one would believe that it is merely a time, place, or manner restriction on speech. Its purpose and effect are to silence entities whose voices the Government deems to be suspect.
Speech is an essential mechanism of democracy, for it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people. See Buckley, supra, at 14-15, 96 S.Ct. 612 (“In a republic where the people are sovereign, the ability of the citizenry to make informed choices among candidates for office is essential”). The right of citizens to inquire, to hear, to speak, and to use information to reach consensus is a precondition to enlightened self-government and a necessary means to protect it. The First Amendment “`has its fullest and most urgent application’ to speech uttered during a campaign for political office.” Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Central Comm., 489 U.S. 214, 223, 109 S.Ct. 1013, 103 L.Ed.2d 271 (1989) (quoting Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U.S. 265, 272, 91 S.Ct. 621, 28 L.Ed.2d 35 (1971)); see Buckley, supra, at 14, 96 S.Ct. 612 (“Discussion of public issues and debate on the qualifications of candidates are integral to the operation of the system of government established by our Constitution”).
For these reasons, political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it, whether by design or inadvertence. Laws that burden political speech are “subject to strict scrutiny,” which requires the Government to prove that the restriction “furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.” WRTL, 551 U.S., at 464, 127 S.Ct. 2652 (opinion of ROBERTS, C.J.). While it might be maintained that political speech simply cannot be banned or restricted as a categorical matter, see Simon & Schuster, 502 U.S., at 124, 112 S.Ct. 501 (KENNEDY, J., concurring in judgment), the quoted language from WRTL provides a sufficient framework for protecting the relevant First Amendment interests in this case. We shall employ it here.
Premised on mistrust of governmental power, the First Amendment stands against attempts to disfavor certain subjects or viewpoints. See, e.g., United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc., 529 U.S. 803, 813, 120 S.Ct. 1878, 146 L.Ed.2d 865 (2000) (striking down content-based restriction). Prohibited, too, are restrictions distinguishing among different speakers, allowing speech by some but not others. See
[130 S.Ct. 899]
Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 784, 98 S.Ct. 1407, 55 L.Ed.2d 707 (1978). As instruments to censor, these categories are interrelated: Speech restrictions based on the identity of the speaker are all too often simply a means to control content.
Quite apart from the purpose or effect of regulating content, moreover, the Government may commit a constitutional wrong when by law it identifies certain preferred speakers. By taking the right to speak from some and giving it to others, the Government deprives the disadvantaged person or class of the right to use speech to strive to establish worth, standing, and respect for the speaker’s voice. The Government may not by these means deprive the public of the right and privilege to determine for itself what speech and speakers are worthy of consideration. The First Amendment protects speech and speaker, and the ideas that flow from each.
The Court has upheld a narrow class of speech restrictions that operate to the disadvantage of certain persons, but these rulings were based on an interest in allowing governmental entities to perform their functions. See, e.g., Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675, 683, 106 S.Ct. 3159, 92 L.Ed.2d 549 (1986)(protecting the “function of public school education”); Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners’ Labor Union, Inc., 433 U.S. 119, 129, 97 S.Ct. 2532, 53 L.Ed.2d 629 (1977) (furthering “the legitimate penological objectives of the corrections system” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733, 759, 94 S.Ct. 2547, 41 L.Ed.2d 439 (1974) (ensuring “the capacity of the Government to discharge its [military] responsibilities” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Civil Service Comm’n v. Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. 548, 557, 93 S.Ct. 2880, 37 L.Ed.2d 796 (1973)(“[F]ederal service should depend upon meritorious performance rather than political service”). The corporate independent expenditures at issue in this case, however, would not interfere with governmental functions, so these cases are inapposite.

With regard to the history of the First amendment:

The First Amendment was certainly not understood to condone the suppression of political speech in society’s most salient media. It was understood as a response to the repression of speech and the press that had existed in England and the heavy taxes on the press that were imposed in the colonies. See McConnell, 540 U.S., at 252-253, 124 S.Ct. 619 (opinion of SCALIA, J.); Grosjean, 297 U.S., at 245-248, 56 S.Ct. 444; Near, 283 U.S., at 713-714, 51 S.Ct. 625. The great debates between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists over our founding document were published and expressed in the most important means of mass communication of that era—newspapers owned by individuals. See McIntyre, 514 U.S., at 341-343, 115 S.Ct. 1511; id., at 367, 115 S.Ct. 1511 (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment). At the founding, speech was open, comprehensive, and vital to society’s definition of itself; there were no limits on the sources of speech and knowledge. See B. Bailyn, Ideological Origins of the American Revolution 5 (1967) (“Any number of people could join in such proliferating polemics, and rebuttals could come from all sides”); G. Wood, Creation of the American Republic 1776-1787, p. 6 (1969) (“[I]t is not surprising that the intellectual sources of [the Americans’] Revolutionary thought were profuse and various”).

The Framers may have been unaware of certain types of speakers or forms of communication, but that does not mean that those speakers and media are entitled to less First Amendment protection than those types of speakers and media that provided the means of communicating political ideas when the Bill of Rights was adopted.
Austin interferes with the “open marketplace” of ideas protected by the First Amendment. New York State Bd. of Elections v. Lopez Torres, 552 U.S. 196, 208, 128 S.Ct. 791, 169 L.Ed.2d 665 (2008); see ibid. (ideas “may compete” in this marketplace “without government interference”); McConnell, supra, at 274, 124 S.Ct. 619 (opinion of THOMAS, J.). It permits the
[130 S.Ct. 907]
Government to ban the political speech of millions of associations of citizens. See Statistics of Income 2 (5.8 million for-profit corporations filed 2006 tax returns). Most of these are small corporations without large amounts of wealth.

When Buckley identified a sufficiently important governmental interest in preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption, that interest was limited to quid pro quo corruption. See McConnell, supra, at 296-298, 124 S.Ct. 619 (opinion of
[130 S.Ct. 910]
KENNEDY, J.) (citing Buckley, supra, at 26-28, 30, 46-48, 96 S.Ct. 612); NCPAC,470 U.S., at 497, 105 S.Ct. 1459 (“The hallmark of corruption is the financial quid pro quo: dollars for political favors”); id., at 498, 105 S.Ct. 1459. The fact that speakers may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that these officials are corrupt:
“Favoritism and influence are not . . . avoidable in representative politics. It is in the nature of an elected representative to favor certain policies, and, by necessary corollary, to favor the voters and contributors who support those policies.

It is well understood that a substantial and legitimate reason, if not the only reason, to cast a vote for, or to make a contribution to, one candidate over another is that the candidate will respond by producing those political outcomes the supporter favors. Democracy is premised on responsiveness.” McConnell, 540 U.S., at 297, 124 S.Ct. 619 (opinion of KENNEDY, J.).

These considerations counsel in favor of rejecting Austin, which itself contravened this Court’s earlier precedents in Buckley and Bellotti. “This Court has not hesitated to overrule decisions offensive to the First Amendment.” WRTL, 551 U.S., at 500, 127 S.Ct. 2652 (opinion of SCALIA, J.). “[S]tare decisis is a principle of policy and not a mechanical formula of adherence to the latest decision.” Helvering v. Hallock, 309 U.S. 106, 119, 60 S.Ct. 444, 84 L.Ed. 604 (1940).
For the reasons above, it must be concluded that Austin was not well reasoned.

Our Nation’s speech dynamic is changing, and informative voices should not have to circumvent onerous restrictions to exercise their First Amendment rights. Speakers have become adept at presenting citizens with sound bites, talking points, and scripted messages that dominate the 24-hour news cycle.

Rapid changes in technology—and the creative dynamic inherent in the concept of
[130 S.Ct. 913]
free expression—counsel against upholding a law that restricts political speech in certain media or by certain speakers. See Part II-C, supra. Today, 30-second television ads may be the most effective way to convey a political message. See McConnell, supra, at 261, 124 S.Ct. 619 (opinion of SCALIA, J.). Soon, however, it may be that Internet sources, such as blogs and social networking Web sites, will provide citizens with significant information about political candidates and issues. Yet, § 441b would seem to ban a blog post expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate if that blog were created with corporate funds. See 2 U.S.C. § 441b(a); MCFL, supra, at 249, 107 S.Ct. 616. The First Amendment does not permit Congress to make these categorical distinctions based on the corporate identity of the speaker and the content of the political speech.

Austin is overruled, so it provides no basis for allowing the Government to limit corporate independent expenditures. As the Government appears to concede, overruling Austin “effectively invalidate[s] not only BCRA Section 203, but also 2 U.S.C. 441b’s prohibition on the use of corporate treasury funds for express advocacy.” Brief for Appellee 33, n. 12. Section 441b’s restrictions on corporate independent expenditures are therefore invalid and cannot be applied to Hillary.

The court then goes on to uphold disclaimers and disclosure statements as being all right because they “do not prevent anyone from speaking”.  But they do require a “substantial relation” between the disclosure requirment and a “sufficiently imortant” goernment interest.  Citing buckley, supra.

The court further notes history and relates the movie “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington”. (Go watch or rewatch this movie on Netflix–it’s absolutely wonderful).

When word concerning the plot of the movie Mr. Smith Goes to Washington reached the circles of Government, some officials sought, by persuasion, to discourage its distribution. See Smoodin, “Compulsory” Viewing for Every Citizen: Mr. Smith and the Rhetoric of Reception, 35 Cinema Journal 3, 19, and n. 52 (Winter 1996) (citing Mr. Smith Riles Washington, Time, Oct. 30, 1939, p. 49); Nugent, Capra’s Capitol Offense, N.Y. Times, Oct. 29, 1939, p. X5. Under Austin, though, officials could have done more than discourage
[130 S.Ct. 917]
its distribution—they could have banned the film. After all, it, like Hillary, was speech funded by a corporation that was critical of Members of Congress. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington may be fiction and caricature; but fiction and caricature can be a powerful force.
Modern day movies, television comedies, or skits on Youtube.com might portray public officials or public policies in unflattering ways. Yet if a covered transmission during the blackout period creates the background for candidate endorsement or opposition, a felony occurs solely because a corporation, other than an exempt media corporation, has made the “purchase, payment, distribution, loan, advance, deposit, or gift of money or anything of value” in order to engage in political speech. 2 U.S.C. § 431(9)(A)(i). Speech would be suppressed in the realm where its necessity is most evident: in the public dialogue preceding a real election. Governments are often hostile to speech, but under our law and our tradition it seems stranger than fiction for our Government to make this political speech a crime. Yet this is the statute’s purpose and design.
Some members of the public might consider Hillary to be insightful and instructive; some might find it to be neither high art nor a fair discussion on how to set the Nation’s course; still others simply might suspend judgment on these points but decide to think more about issues and candidates. Those choices and assessments, however, are not for the Government to make. “The First Amendment underwrites the freedom to experiment and to create in the realm of thought and speech. Citizens must be free to use new forms, and new forums, for the expression of ideas. The civic discourse belongs to the people, and the Government may not prescribe the means used to conduct it.” McConnell, supra, at 341, 124 S.Ct. 619 (opinion of KENNEDY, J.).
The judgment of the District Court is reversed with respect to the constitutionality of 2 U.S.C. § 441b’s restrictions on corporate independent expenditures.

Chief Justice Roberts and Alito joins, concurring.  Scalia, Alito and Thomas join in an additional opinion along the same lines.

4 Justices dissent

Invitation to appear on Cooper’s corner

Recently I sent an email to all the probate attys and ARDC protectors of the cottage industry known as probate, but have not heard a peep back.

Here is the invitation and response:

From: JoAnne M Denison <jdenison@surfree.com>
To: Melissa Smart Ill ARDC <msmart@iardc.org>; Sharon Opryszek Ill ardc <sopryszek@iardc.org>; Sung Yul Lee Chair ARDC hearing panel for my case <slee@edwardswildman.com>; Administrator Jerome Larkin <jlarkin@iardc.org>; Cynthia Farenga <cfarenga@comcast.net>; Stern <sternlaw@ameritech.net>; Daniel Stilton OPG Office Public Guardian <Daniel.Silton@cookcountyil.gov>; Jay Dolgin Dolgin Law Group <jdolgin@dolginlawgroup.com>; tom brennan OPG cook county <tom.brennan1@cookcountyil.gov>; Sharon Rudy Atty OPG <sharon.rudy@sharonrudylaw.com>; Kimberly McKenzie GAL atty <kmckenzielaw@yahoo.com>; Atty Amu ‘Lanu — honest atty oppressed by ARDC <loamu@aol.com>; Atty Diane Saltoun IAG Illinois Atty General <dsaltoun@atg.state.il.us>; Atty Nejla Lane Lane Legal Services. com <info@lanelegalservices.com>
Cc: Bev Cooper Probate Sharks <bev.cooperscorner@yahoo.com>; Lucius Verenus Probate Sharks <verenusl@gmail.com>; Atty Ken Ditkowsky <ken@ditkowskylawoffice.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2013 1:44 AM
Subject: Invitation from Cooper’s Corner to appear on Cable Access show LIVE June 26, 2013

Dear All,

Bev Cooper has openings and wishes to formally invite you to appear on her show.

You can talk freely about whatever you want to.  the time required is 7 to 8:30.  The show runs one hour and is live from 7:30 to 8:30 next Wednesday June 26, 2013 and is taped at the Highland Park Police department in Highland Park, Illinois.

Anyone from the ARDC, connected with the ARDC, or who is probate attorney or GAL or OPG is invited to appear for this show.  the show airs lives and then taped for 2 weeks and goes to about half a million households in the NW suburbs of chicago

Former Justice Sandra Day O connor has appeared on the Daily Show and did a fabulous job.

Please advise if you are interested.  You may email to Bev Cooper directly.

ken, you might have more emails for this notice of attys that Bev is looking for.  Please send this notice on to OPG attys, probate attys (good and bad), probate judges, ARDC attys, past and present, etc.

This is a fabulous opportunity to inform the public of the “mysteries” of probate and probate law.



and of course, ken’s comments:

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Jun 22, 2013 6:44 AM
To: JoAnne M Denison , Melissa Smart Ill ARDC , Sharon Opryszek Ill ardc , Sung Yul Lee Chair ARDC hearing panel for my case , Administrator Jerome Larkin , Cynthia Farenga , Stern , Daniel Stilton OPG Office Public Guardian , Jay Dolgin Dolgin Law Group , tom brennan OPG cook county , Sharon Rudy Atty OPG , Kimberly McKenzie GAL atty , Atty Amu ‘Lanu — honest atty oppressed by ARDC , Atty Diane Saltoun IAG Illinois Atty General , “Atty Nejla Lane Lane Legal Services. com”
Cc: Bev Cooper Probate Sharks , Lucius Verenus Probate Sharks , Atty Ken Ditkowsky
Subject: Re: Invitation from Cooper’s Corner to appear on Cable Access show LIVE June 26, 2013

Ms. Cooper has made this offer many times and the people who share with M. Solo the infamy of the “Alice Gore” estate, the “Mary Sykes” estate do not wish to face the daughter of a victim before a television Camera.    How do you justify the dissipation of a 1.5 million dollar estate in three years and the removal of the victims Au filings!     How do you justify the four years of deprivation of the liberty of Mary Sykes and the failure to provide Mary with the due process protections provided for in 755 ILCS 5/11a – 10.
The miscreants know that they have done terrible things and have caused great pain.    Even the most glib of the miscreants has to realize that a ‘slip of the tongue’ can cause them to trade a cushy ‘cline’ for a federal prison.     Why risk it.    CYNTHIA FARENGA  realized the danger of an Honest comprehensive investigation of the Sykes case when she wrote the ‘smoking gun’ letter to the IARDC requesting them to muzzle you and me.    The IARDC then brought its proceedings against us!
When Bev produces the ‘smoking gun’ letter and asks the ‘simple question’ Mr. Holder will have another ‘smoking gun.’   Similarly, how does an attorney justify the IARDC prosecution of either of us in light of the First amendment – pre-teens know the prosecutions are violations of the First Amendment, yet these State paid attorneys do not!
If my analysis forwarded previously is as accurate as I think it is, if a miscreant appears on Cooper’s corner 1/2 the audience reached will have some interest either in law enforcement or ‘healthcare!’
Ken Ditkowsky


So far, not a peep but it has not been long.  I’ll let you know.  I bet the only peep out of the whole bunch is Chair Lee telling me not to email him because that’s exparte.  And then he’ll issue one of these “form” orders that say I can’t email him..  Of course since I email the ARDC ladies at the same time, it’s not ex parte, but why let him worry about that.

I’ll let you know if Bev or I hear anything from “the bunch”.

From Ken Ditkowsky–an apology to Gloria

On Jun 21, 2013 9:32 AM, “kenneth ditkowsky” <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com> wrote:

Gloria –

I am sorry that the Illinois Supreme Court in spite of the article in the Illinois Bar posting has no program to help stamp out elder cleansing,  elder abuse, financial exploitation of the elderly by defacto and dejure guardians.

the hypocrisy is amazing.    The ACLU does not want to touch these elder cases as just about every attorney who has ventured in the fray on the side of the elderly has had to deal with some type of intimidation from the entrenched ‘cottage industry.’    The Farenga letter to the IARDC is a smoking gun.    You had an attorney JB who was fighting for you, and after he had talk with our friends (the miscreants)  he turned on you.     Both JoAnne Denison and I have had our share of harassment – which continues to this day – even though the IARDC is aware from the Court record in Sykes and the Sheriff’s office that 755 ILCS 5/11a – 10 was totally ignored and thus, the Probate Divison had no jurisdiction to deprive you and your mother of your respective liberty and property rights for 4 years!    This outrage continues!

I’ve added to this e-mail Senator Mark Kirk’s office, the office of the United States Attorney, the Suntimes, Illinois Bar Association and the Tribune.    I did not include Senator Durbin as his office has indicated that it is disinterested in our senior citizens – my last letter was acknowledge with “thank you for writing.”     At least this time I was not sent a copy of his speech on how he is protecting the social security of senior citizens!    The guardians appointed by a court lacking jurisdiction have profited enough with Mary’s social security checks.   (I refer to the large number of double eagle Au coins that were not inventoried when your and your mother’s safety deposit box was drilled).

The IARDC may consider it unethical to complain to the government, the Bar, the media and law enforcement that Mary Sykes has been denied her liberty and property for almost four years.    The the truth of every statement that you, JoAnne, or I have made is documented on Ms. Denison’s website, the Probate Sharks website,  NASGA website and many other places on the Web.

This inchoate scandal and vicious attack on the First Amendment, even though it might affect a bunch of the political elite and cause embarrassment to the 2nd oldest profession must be the immediate subject of an HONEST complete and comprehensive investigation.    Judge Stuart may have a relationship to the President of the United States and she may be the most wonderful person in the world – but,  the record certified by the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois fails to disclose that Judge Stuart or any other judge sitting as presiding judge in the Mary Sykes case had jurisdiction – as the jurisdictional criterion of 755 ILCS 5/11a -10 was ignored.    The evidence deposition of Justice Connors confirms this fact!     HOW CAN THIS HAPPEN IN AMERICA!

Ken Ditkowsky

More information from Gloria on “new plan” and where to go for low cost/free probate legal services

Information from Gloria:

She checked into the “new” program to help the poor and disadvantaged to get some sort of legal services in the are of probate.

She was told that there were only a handful of legal services that would assist, but none are really equipped or funded enough to get into the area of probate and Judge Kilbride’s offices was very sorry about that.  They were aware of the problem, but had not solved it yet.

Places to go for free or low cost legal services if caught up in probate.

1. CVLS or Chicago Volunteer Legal Services
2.  Center for Disability and Elderly
3.  Chicago Legal Clinic
4. Equipt for Equality
5.  Access Living
6. (Northwest suburbs) Center for Concern in Park Ridge

As far as I am aware, none of these will take on anything contested or difficult.  Most will do a simple will, Power of Attorney for Property or Health Care only.

BUT if you catch it in time, and a Petition for Guardianship has just been filed, you might be able to cross petition and save the day.  The above agencies might be able to help you with that on a limited basis.

Good luck


From Atty Ken Ditkowsky–no, you cannot tweet in your notice of hearing!

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Jun 20, 2013 1:55 PM
To: JoAnne M Denison
Subject: Re: Fw: Notice of hearing to be given by mail or in person

Hindsight is always 100%.    However, sometimes less is more, and an attorney witness has to be treated very carefully.   For instance, as Stern was estranged from reality and he was talking nonsense and saying things that everyone knew or should know – including the IARDC panel – were absurd.
As an example: a subpoena of the Bank as to the contents of a safety deposit box is about as useless as a subpoena directed to the President.    Neither the president has any knowledge of the contents of Gloria’s and Mary’s safety deposit box.    Had he interviewed Gloria or one of the close relatives who actually knew what was in the box, his testimony had meaning.     (As Mary was railroaded into an incompetency proceeding and Stern testified that he could not claim she told him what was in the box).
However, as he was divorced from the facts and was competing for a Nobel prize in fiction, he could have testified that indeed Carolyn had found an inventory in the box. (Which was true)    He then could have testified that he saw it (which may or may not have been true).    He reviewed it (which may or may not be true) and determined that in his opinion there was nothing of value therein.    This statement is a little tricky but has been employed in the elder cleansing (elder abuse/financial exploitation) on a regular basis.    Mr. Stern would then suggest that he had no present recollection of what, if anything, this particular inventory stated, except that he remembered he had seen it.
Oh – you say –  there were gold coins, uncirculated Au double eagles!
Today as I was coming back from Court today, I heard a financial analysis say that Au to him was without value as it could not be ‘spent’ at the grocery store.    The chairman of the hearing panel was not friendly and therefore you would be cut off very quickly and the last word for a panel that could find that three people had knowledge of a fact without any testimony from any of the three people of their knowledge (past, prior, or current) would be left with Adam Stern’s testimony that the inventory list he observed *****.
If as we believe there is a cottage industry in relation to these elder cleansing cases I would not be surprised if Stern/Farenga/Schmiedel did indeed see the inventory and we all parties to the non-inventory of the Au coins.   We cannot prove what Stern remembered or did not remember and it is sure fire certainty that the inventory in the box was destroyed and the copy, if any, in Mary’s papers has been sequestered and destroyed as well.
 This is the reason that we need an investigation by competent law enforcement.    It is a crime to lie to a Federal officer – but you, I and the panel members are not Federal officers.     In a Federal prosecution Farenga/Stern/Schmiedel will have an incentive to be accurate, but, before a friendly fact finder – no way!   Witnesses who have a tendency to be inventive are dangerous.     Lawyers are particularly dangerous when they are caught in a situation that might have serious adverse legal consequences if the truth comes out!    This is the reason these lawyers are spending so much effort to prevent an HONEST complete and comprehensive investigation.
Ken Ditkowsky

From: JoAnne M Denison <jdenison@surfree.com>
To: kenneth ditkowsky <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 1:03 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Notice of hearing to be given by mail or in person

read the statutes together.  Mary HAD TO GET WRITTEN NOTICE of time, date and place of hearing because that is on the form Notice of Rights which is required to be served.

I agree with the TRO.  But when the hearing must be14 days out, PHONE NOTICE DOES NOT NEED TO BE GIVEN.  There is a procedure for a temp guardianship.

Plus everything served must have a certificate of service filed with it.

I do NOT agree that the Ct of Appeals OR SCOI would agree that oral notice to relatives would suffice.  Plus, the oral notice would have to be “in person” which is NOT a phone conversation.  In person means someone is standing right there saying it.

Singing telegram, do you think that’s was AS was thinking about on the stand.

And in our world, where the tribunal refuses to even allow Google sharing for document discovery, it would be most interesting for AS to say it is okay to phone it in, Skype it, email it, fax it or even tweet it.  That aint’ gonna happen.

His testimony was pure and utter BS and I would have ripped it apart.


Public post–Judge Kilbride announces program to help poor and disadvantaged obtain justice!

Chief Justice Thomas L. Kilbride and the Illinois Supreme Court announced Tuesday several important new measures to improve equal access to justice for all of the people of Illinois, and especially for the poor and vulnerable.
Illinois Lawyer Now

Illinois Supreme Court announces new measures to improve legal services for disadvantaged

 It seems to me that if the Illinois Supreme Court is indeed serious, Gloria upon making application should be afforded legal representation.    Gloria – please call Justice’s Kilbride’s office and maybe he can help you obtaining some help in all the legal matters that you are involved in and in particularly, what in my opinion is the ‘extra legal’ proceedings that have separated you and your mother from your home, your liberty and your property.
I previously sent to your and others the letter that I received from the Sheriff of Cook County and the Sheriff of DuPage county.      As you and your two aunts have confirmed that you never received any prior 14 day notification of any proceeding to declare your mother (Mary Sykes) incompetent, and the letter from the Sheriff of Cook County and the accompanying records disclose that Mary Sykes was never served with the process required by 755 ILCS 5/11a -10 it should be a piece of cake for an attorney who files an appearance for you to bring the Court record,and  the Sheriff’s record to the Presiding Judge’s attention so that the Court can see on black and white that the jurisdictional criterion was never met and therefore for approximately four years you and your mother have been subjected to what everyone believes to be untenable abuse by “judicial officials” acting under color of law, but without jurisdiction.
The lawyer (or entity assigned to help you) might also look into the ‘raid’ on your and your mother’s safety deposit box and the removal of a substantial number of Au coins, their not being inventoried, and thusly concealed without either your consent or your mother’s consent.
Ken Ditkowsky


From Ken Ditkowsky–the Sup. Ct. of Illinois has announce a new plan to help the poor, the disavantaged obtain counsel. Gloria, get in line!

From: JoAnne M Denison <jdenison@surfree.com>
To: kenneth ditkowsky <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>; Gloria Sykes <gloami@msn.com>; Bev Cooper Probate Sharks <bev.cooperscorner@yahoo.com>; John Howard Wyman <johnhowardwyman@gmail.com>; Sylvia Rudek <rudeksylvia@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 12:57 PM
Subject: Re: Representation in the probate courts

EXCELLENT!  okay to post.  I agree, Gloria should be the FIRST TO STAND IN LINE.  For 3 years she has been excluded, snubbed, denigrated unfairly–in a court clearly without jurisdiction where millions of dollars in assets suddenly disappeared and the GAL’s never investigate.

Joint assets of Mary and Gloria are pilfered–with a blind rubber stamp from the court.

You and I scream out about the unfairness, lack of any semblance of justice, integrity, honesty, ethics– even jurisdiction, and the miscreants look at us like we are missing our heads.  The ARDC then does the same.

This outrage should not and cannot continue

Gloria if you need an affidavit or declarations from myself and Ken that you should be the first in line for a court appointed atty, just email them and I’ll be glad to sign mine in very clear large handwriting, so that the judges in charge and their goons do NOT miss it.  Your request should be hand delivered in a neon envelope so the court does not miss yours.  Bright pink would be good!

—–Original Message—–
From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Jun 20, 2013 12:41 PM
To: GLORIA SYKES , JoAnne Denison , probate sharks , NASGA , matt senator kirk , Eric Holder , Cook Sheriff , states attorney
Cc: j ditkowsky , Harry Heckert
Subject: Representation in the probate courts

I found on the Illinois State Bar Association daily news letter the following article
Illinois Supreme Court announces new measures to improve legal services for disadvantaged
Chief Justice Thomas L. Kilbride and the Illinois Supreme Court announced Tuesday several important new measures to improve equal access to justice for all of the people of Illinois, and especially for the poor and vulnerable.
Illinois Lawyer Now
 It seems to me that if the Illinois Supreme Court is indeed serious, Gloria upon making application should be afforded legal representation.    Gloria – please call Justice’s Kilbride’s office and maybe he can help you obtaining some help in all the legal matters that you are involved in and in particularly, what in my opinion is the ‘extra legal’ proceedings that have separated you and your mother from your home, your liberty and your property.
I previously sent to your and others the letter that I received from the Sheriff of Cook County and the Sheriff of DuPage county.      As you and your two aunts have confirmed that you never received any prior 14 day notification of any proceeding to declare your mother (Mary Sykes) incompetent, and the letter from the Sheriff of Cook County and the accompanying records disclose that Mary Sykes was never served with the process required by 755 ILCS 5/11a -10 it should be a piece of cake for an attorney who files an appearance for you to bring the Court record,and  the Sheriff’s record to the Presiding Judge’s attention so that the Court can see on black and white that the jurisdictional criterion was never met and therefore for approximately four years you and your mother have been subjected to what everyone believes to be untenable abuse by “judicial officials” acting under color of law, but without jurisdiction.
The lawyer (or entity assigned to help you) might also look into the ‘raid’ on your and your mother’s safety deposit box and the removal of a substantial number of Au coins, their not being inventoried, and thusly concealed without either your consent or your mother’s consent.
Ken Ditkowsky


From Janet Phelan–refections on what path to take in the cause of Elder Abuse and Exploitation

Janet C. Phelan
Activist Post

When I was in grade school, the alarms would begin and, whether we were in instruction or at lunch or recess, we knew what those sirens meant. We would put down whatever was in our hands — pencils, forks, a softball — and file into the auditorium. There we would put our heads between our knees, cover our little necks with our forearms and wait for either doomsday or the all clear.

Some little girls would always begin to sob. We never knew whether it was a drill or not until the all clear sounded.

Unlike so many of my classmates, I was never worried. A small voice inside me told me there was no real danger from Soviet missiles and, bolstered by this, I remained aloof, calm.

But the small still voice told me something else. Later, it told me. The danger will come later.

We are no longer children, those of us who lived through the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Red Threat. We have accumulated layers of knowledge, wisdom and, unlike seven year olds unable to quite stifle their terror, we have learned methods to deal with a sense of imminent threat.

Or have we?

At the core of the sensibility of weeping children, filing into an auditorium for an unknown conclusion, was fear. Fear for self and fear for those we loved.

That fear is still ostensibly at the core of what drives our most personal and political of actions. This fear could also be called the “survival instinct,” “fight or flight” and forms a substantial tributary into how we form our lives. Do we speak out when we see someone being hurt? Do we first take stock of the personal ramifications for so doing? Do we post anonymously on the Internet, attacking or supporting others under a comfortable veil of hidden identity? Do we give of our time and energies when there is no ostensible personal gain attached? Does our work take us into realms of information access that would be safer for us to not acknowledge having?

The human heart has always been divided in its desire to protect itself, set against its desire to expand, to embrace and identify with others — to be of use. The list of those whose lives were dictated by the latter mandate reads like a list of the crucified — Martin Luther King and Gandhi may be two of the most distinguished modern day martyrs — but the actual list of names casts back to the beginnings of history and many of the names of those martyred for love — and isn’t that what we are talking about? — love vs. self obsession — have been buried in the wake of their extreme acts of goodness — a goodness which has always been perilous to possess.

But the stakes are higher now. Joan d’Arc went up in flames because she obeyed the voice of God and angered the British. Her crimes of heresy and insubordination echo both backwards and forwards through history. Karen Silkwood took on a chemical Goliath and paid for it with her very breath—once again, defying the powerful in acts of both heresy and disrespect for authority. Random acts of rebellion seem less random and garner more attention because the world is smaller now. The density and focus of accumulated power gives every gesture of goodness, every act of self transcendence a concomitant greater potential for tipping the balance.

In the wake of Edward Snowden’s revelations of the degree and extent to which the U.S has constructed a Stasi like surveillance society, we can see again how the two competing desires of the human heart — self protection and self expansion — are duking it out. Some individuals will want to retract even further, given the shocking knowledge that what they thought were private and secure communications may have lit up the NSA computers like a pinball arcade. Others may react as if a gauntlet has been thrown down. You are listening to WHAT? You are keeping files on me for WHAT? — and as a result only multiply efforts to establish connections and reach out to others, defying the watchers.

The most revolutionary act has always been an act of self transcendence. There is no upheaval, no paradigm shift attached to bean counting, whether in monetary transactions or in how we relate energetically to others. To activate one’s knowledge, one’s potential for making the leap from “ME” to ”NOT ME” may be one of the most radical acts possible, given the pervasiveness of the politics of fear and self protection.

We live in exceptional times. We are faced with exceptional opportunities — to change the course of history, which is tunneling deeper and deeper towards global totalitarianism This challenge is being delivered to each and every one of us. We can shut ourselves down and hope we have escaped attention, all too understandable in light of the human propensity for self protection. This decision will only ensure the success of the global lockdown being thrust upon us.

Or, we can take another route. This other route is bathed in the incandescence of something we have been taught to scoff at — a moral absolute. It is both thrilling and sobering to realize that one is participating in the resistance against something so enormous, baffling in its complexity and shadowy reach. This other road defines in the most fundamental sense what it means to be human. It also redefines a symbol — the crossroads — which we have been taught to accept as the sign of the death and resurrection of God.

The crossroads, however, is also a symbol of the intersection between earth and sky, the juncture at which what is flesh connects with that which is greater and more enduring. This is the opportunity that has been afforded us — to participate in the future of our world in ways that provide the possibility that there will be a future.

The crossroads is also a symbol of choice. This other road — the road of fearlessness and love — invites us to live largely. It does not ensure our personal safety and security. It only offers us something far greater than that.

From Janet Phelan, and thanks soooo very much.  Good inspiring words in times of trouble.

Letters, emails and faxes to the ACLU regarding elder abuse and exploitation, what’s the consensus on response thereto?

To: JoAnne M Denison <JoAnne@DenisonLaw.com>
Cc: Eric Holder <askdoj@usdoj.gov>, matt senator kirk <matt_abbott@kirk.senate.gov>
Subject: Re: ACLU’s disinterest in the Mary Sykes and other elder cleansing cases In re: Mary Sykes, Circuit Court of Cook County 2009 P4585
Date: Jun 19, 2013 2:49 PM
of course you can publish.      It is absolutely disgusting that no one is interested when we learn from the Sheriff’s report that not only were the close (near) relatives of the alleged disabled person not served with process (oral or written) but the alleged disabled person was not served.    Yet for four years Mary Sykes was deprived of her liberty and substantial property.    Not only does no-one care, but the legal profession through the IARDC is trying to stop lawyers from complaining.
All I asked for was an HONEST complete and comprehensive investigation and I got North Korean application of the law right here in Chicago.
Ken Ditkowsky

From: JoAnne M Denison <jdenison@surfree.com>
To: kenneth ditkowsky <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 2:31 PM
Subject: Re: ACLU’s disinterest in the Mary Sykes and other elder cleansing cases In re: Mary Sykes, Circuit Court of Cook County 2009 P4585

good email, okay to publish?

and now that the miscreants have threatened us, the blog is still going okay, I have emailed everyone the password — “freespeech” so I guess it’s all okay.

Now the miscreants won’t know what we’re up to.

I can even move the blog and let them guess.

another day, another shell game with them.

eventually, they will run out of shells and peas tho.

—–Original Message—–
From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Jun 19, 2013 1:25 PM
To: john wyman
Cc: JoAnne Denison , GLORIA SYKES
Subject: Re: ACLU’s disinterest in the Mary Sykes and other elder cleansing cases In re: Mary Sykes, Circuit Court of Cook County 2009 P4585

Will try to tet them interested
Ken Ditkowsky
Huxley’s Brave New World  predicted elder cleansing was in the ‘cards’ however, we never anticipated that our beloved political elite would be so anxious to openly and notoriously allow the 21st century Holocaust to become a ‘cottage industry.’
I am surprised that the legal profession would be so docile and the civil libertarians so deadly silent.    Democracy is not a spectator sport.    The destruction of America’s core values is being led by all the organizations that solicit money to protect Civil Rights!
 Mary Sykes is not a Nazi, not a terrorist, not homosexual, not unconventional, not a threat to society,  not advocating the destruction of x, y, or z, and has not broken any laws.     In fact she ‘was’ a contributor to the making of America a great nation.   Ergo, the ACLU and all the liberal organizations, law enforcement, and our political leaders are not interested when she is the victim of an assault on her civil rights.

From: john wyman <johnhowardwyman@gmail.com>
To: kenneth ditkowsky <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 12:16 PM
Subject: Re: ACLU’s disinterest in the Mary Sykes and other elder cleansing cases In re: Mary Sykes, Circuit Court of Cook County 2009 P4585

Dear Ken
I received a similar response from the ACLU ,I,m not sure what they do at this point!!
however they did refer me to an organization called equip for equality,they have a office near you,you might want to give them a call!!

yours truly
John Howard Wyman

On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 9:07 AM, kenneth ditkowsky <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com> wrote:

Thank you for your response.    Even a negative response is welcome as it indicates to those of us who are engaged in trying to terminate the senior citizen Holocaust where we stand.     We respect your right to disagree with us, and will fight to the death to protect your right to express your own opinions on ‘elder cleansing.’    It is sad that the concept of Buck vs. Bell  is still alive and well.
It is however amazing that no one is interested or concerned by the fact that senior citizens are being literally herded out of their lives, deprived of their liberty and property by persons who are appointed by what historically has been one of the premier corrupt courts.    I guess that senior citizens who are routinely subjected to second class citizenship are considered by our 21st century liberal establishment to be indeed sub-human and not worthy of Constitutional protections.
I am forwarding your e-mail to me to the NASGA, Probate Sharks, et al sites so that they can forward it to every other organized group seeking to end ‘elder cleansing’ so that each will know that people such as Mary Sykes, Alice Gore, and others similarly situated are not on the priority  list of the ACLU.
thank you for being candid
Ken Ditkowsky

From: Front Desk <frontdesk@ACLU-il.org>
To:kenditkowsky@yahoo.com” <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 9:21 AM
Subject: Intake Matter

Dear Mr. Ditkowsky:
Thank you for contacting the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois.  We have reviewed your situation carefully and we regret to inform you that we will not be able to accept your case.
The ACLU office is a legal center that involves itself with broad impact, constitutional litigation.  These are issues where the government has abused constitutional rights.  Unfortunately, we regret that most cases of individual unfairness or injustice cannot be accepted.
We receive more than 20,000 requests annually for legal assistance.  Our resources are limited and we can only act upon a small percentage of the requests.  The fact that we cannot help you, however, does not mean the case does not involve a novel issue pertaining to civil liberties, or that we do not have the resources to handle the case.
You should know that there is a limited time in which legal action may be pursued, sometimes referred to as a statute of limitations. You might be wise to ask an attorney for advice about preserving any rights you may have.
    Please accept our regrets that we cannot help you with your situation.
Intake Department

The ARDC and Jurisdiction

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Jun 18, 2013 9:11 AM
Cc: JoAnne Denison , “IllinoisLawyerNow@isba.org” , Kathie Bakken , scott evans , Bev Cooper , “johnpresta@att.net”
Subject: Re: IARDC and fairness are strangers.

 I think the Sheriff’s letter to me has exposed the ‘game’ and our friends are looking for some way to get around the fact that the Sheriff has no record of your mother being served with process as required by law.     As you are aware without proper service there is a big problem:
The ‘cover up’ continues however it has been derailed for the moment.    When in doing our investigation we discovered that the petition was defective and that section 11a -10(f) was not complied with – Farenga, Stern and Schmiedel went to the Illinois Attorney Registration and Discipline Commission and they reacted to her letter and commenced disciplinary proceedings against JoAnne Denison and me.    When the IARDC discovered that we were right they just ignored the facts and over-ruled the Supreme Court of Illinois saying that you and your two aunts had knowledge of the “hearing” in which your mother was found to be incompetent.   (I know the hearing did not meet any standard of a hearing, but, even though ‘clear and convincing’ is the standard, in these ‘elder cleansing cases’ the standard is “do not confuse me with the facts I’ve made up my mind.”     Ergo the hearing committee determined (without a scintilla of evidence) that you and your two aunts had knowledge.     The panel was careful to avoid saying that you had prior knowledge as that would be obviously a material misrepresentation of fact and that would be unethical.
As the Sheriff of Cook County is a public official and he by the records that he forwarded us confirms that Mary was not served with proper service as required by 755 ILCS 5/11a -10 it is going to take some gymnastics to overcome an official record.     Schmiedel’s letter along with Farenga’s (smoking gun letter) demonstrate the MO of the miscreants.      It is too late for our friends to do anything concerning the Sheriff’s records and it is too late for them to do anything about the certified Court record in Sykes.    Any hope they might have that the IARDC might intimidate either JoAnne or me into silence has been lost – they played the IARDC card and neither us missed a beat.
I’ve copied the Attorney General and law enforcement time and time again so that they have substantial material to justify a ‘elder cleansing’ investigation on the Sykes case.    No-one at this point in time can claim that they were informed that CT entered your mother’s (and your) safety deposit box and removed a large quantity of Au coins valued at at least a million dollars.   No one can claim that they were unaware that these coins were not inventoried.  Indeed, the fact that IARDC attorney asked me if I repented for writing the Attorney General and requesting an investigation is clear and convincing evidence that we struck a nerve.    NOW ADD TO THIS never that the Sheriff has provided us with additional proof that for four years Mary Sykes has been held against her will and had her liberty and property rights totally removed from her.
AT this point in time I would suggest that our miscreants have some problems that no matter what ‘clout’ they have, they will have to face the music.   Ultimately, the censorship has to end and the truth will out!     It would be in the miscreants best interests to make their peace with you –
Even though it gets the IARDC upset for an attorney to mention it, but the Sykes case is a postboard case of elder abuse and elder cleansing.     The cover-up is also classic.    I suspect that when push comes to shove the IARDC is going to be required to investigate the dozens of citizen complaints against the ‘cottage industry’ of elder cleansing.    The only question is when and what members of the political elite are going down.
Ken Ditkowsky
The IARDC proceeding is not a ‘level playing field.’
Just take a look at the Farenga letter and then the Sheriff’s letter from yesterday.     How can any organization that regulates lawyers take so kindly to a letter that asks it to join in the illegal act of denying citizens of their First Amendment Rights.         Ms. Farenga has unequivocally demonstrated at the time that she was writing her letter miscreant conduct and citizen complaints to the IARDC concerning Ms. Farenga, Mr. Stern, and her associates had been flowing in – the complaints are very serious.    The attack on Ms. Gloria Sykes insurance recovery was unprecedented in that it not only denied her full faith and credit, but, stopped the repair of a value assets.    This is called ‘waste’ and it was Court approved.    Very simply at Ms. Farenga’s request a valuable asset was being destroyed i.e. a dwelling in which the disabled person was a joint tenant!
Judge Connor’s testimony on re-direct should have raised all kinds of red flags, especially when she volunteered that if the lack of jurisdiction had been brought to her attention she would have held a new hearing and the same result would have occurred.   Of course when it was apparent that the jurisdictional requirements were not met, the hearing board just ignored them (as had the IARDC, and the Court).    Forced to rationalize the hearing board found (without a scintilla of proof) that the persons entitled to actual oral and/or written notice 14 days prior to a scheduled hearing as to Mary Sykes’ competency – and who had not received any notice – had knowledge.      It was interesting that the hearing board steered away from finding that they prior notice!
Why are you surprised when you find the ‘HUNTER’ transcripts are incomplete?    The surprise is that the IARDC produced the Farenga (smoking gun) letter for you – they did not produce it for me.       The IARDC carefully screened the material that it produced and that it used at the hearing.     Every complaint letter against Farenga, Stern, and Schmiedel should have been produced by the IARDC, especially as it relates to the Sykes case.     Obviously, none were produced as the numerous citizen complaints would have disclosed facts that were not convenient and even in a non-level playing field would have made it more difficult to reach the desired result.
The foregoing notwithstanding, the Sheriff’s letter and exhibits are conclusive proof that the circuit court was never vested with jurisdiction.    The perfidy is disclosed by the fact that CT  knowing that Mary was being held in Naperville sent the Sheriff to the Avondale (Chicago) address where she and her lawyer knew Mary was not!     The DuPage County Sheriff’s disclosure that Mary was not part of their system and that no attempt was made to serve Mary in Naperville is also quite significant.    Finally the elaborate sham that was disclosed by Mr. Schmiedel’s letter.    Schmiedel knows that prior to service being attempted there is a Sheriff’s fee.   Today it is sixty dollars, at the time it was fifty dollars.    He then with bluster and threats tries to mask that fact that he was aware that the Sheriff’s records were clear  – there was no record of Mary being served.    As a seasoned attorney he was also aware that the service if it had occurred would be not in accordance with the Statutory mandate.
Going one step further, the First thing a Court must do is ascertain if it has jurisdiction.   This important step was not done, or it was intentionally ignored as the object of the court proceedings was improper from day one.     This is the reason that I’ve called for an investigation and continue to do so  – it appears that this is the reason that such vigorous attempts have been exerted to prevent an investigation.    Farenga has a particular problem – there are two GALs appointed in an estate that has few disclosed assets, but at least a million dollars of undisclosed and uninventoried assets.
The Sheriff’s letter and exhibits were all sent to the IARDC.     As the records do not show Mary Sykes to have been served with process and Ms. Schmiedel has demonstrated that the jurisdictional statute has been ignored in my opinion if there is any integrity in the IARDC and its administrator at the very least he will request of law enforcement an HONEST, complete and comprehensive investigation of the Sykes case including all the letters of complaint against our friends – and all of them including those in the employ of the State of Illinois.   If there is nothing to hide, why the resistance to the investigation ?
Ken Ditkowsky


Yesterday I heard some very disturbing news…

One of my contacts told me that the sugar in my gas tank and Ken’s tail light being shot out was a warning over this blog.

Apparently the blog has attracted some dark, negative and violent energy that is intent on harm if the stories and posts don’t “go away”.

I was told to “stop it” and “lay off”.

So with great reluctance, I pulled the blog this morning to make most of it private.  Until further notice, all posts naming names and providing “too much information” will be password protected to protect the innocent.

I will definitely check back from time to time with “my sources”, but I am warning the rest of the blogs and anyone posting information on the names named here, to check out with a reliable source if you have publish about any of these cases, are experiencing “unexplained troubles” and just pull your stuff until further notice.

Someone getting hurt is not worth it.  While I think the blog has done a lot of good, it has raised a lot of eyebrows and opened up a whole lot of eyes, I don’t want any harm from it, so posts will eventually be made password protected with high level security until further notice.

We will continue to post, but it will only be on issues of law, caselaw and forms.  When I get further information, posts may be released for public view when it is safe.  Please continue to send me your general probate case law questions, and we will respond.

I hate to do this, but I see no other way out.

My heart goes out to those that have been probate victims too, because for many of them, death is the only way out.


Why is Chase asking for a 60 to 90 day extension of time in federal court?



(if link breaks, just cut and paste)–doct. no. 100 for a 60 to 90 day extension of time.

While not just two days ago, Chase asked to quickly hold a hearing so they could lift the stay in bankruptcy to file a foreclosure against Gloria’s property, they then turned around and immediately filed a motion to extend the time for hearing?!?!?!?

So which is it?  They want the hearing in 2 weeks at first–but then the very next day they want another 60 to 90 days to get their own personnel to testify.

Of course, now this would be a terriffic opportunity to serve full discovery on Chase–ask a number of embarrassing questions, interrogatories, requests for all their documents, ask what happened to that safe deposit box of Gloria’s that was drilled and emptied, probably by Carolyn because she looks a lot like Gloria, but the bank should have known better.

As many of you know, Gloria’s home was trashed by Chase when someone (PS?) called them and told them that Gloria’s home was “abandoned.”  So what did Chase do?  The hired goons to put a lock box on the house, they smashed out walls on both floors, dumped all of Gloria’s home furnishings into the snow in the alley–and the weirdest thing is, they went into the garage and disabled her 4 camera security system–which my son Matt and I helped put back together for her and set up properly with a password.  They messed with the recording and pulled out all the cabling to the cameras in the back.

How much does Popjoy know about all this?  How far does the corruption in the circuit court go to?  As noted before, the bankruptcy judge Donald Cassling was not buying Chase’s assertions they needed to lift the stay to file a foreclosure without first proving they held the note and Gloria did not have valid defenses.

Are the miscreants having problems in a court system where the judges are not elected and wired into the system, and so they are slowing everything down.

Turns out in this case it was a very good move for Gloria to file that bankruptcy.

You go, girl!



Is this the Illinois ARDC or is it Jerry Falwell?

Another favorite case of mine:

Hustler Magazine and Larry C. Flynt, Petitioners v. Jerry FalwellNo. 86-1278SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES485 U.S. 46February 24, 1988, Decided

REHNQUIST, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BRENNAN, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, STEVENS, O’CONNOR, and SCALIA, JJ., joined. WHITE, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. KENNEDY, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court.

[I know many of you may not find this to be significant, but Justice Rehnquist was on the other side of the first amendment case in the Pentagon Papers case in 1971, so old dogs can learn new (helpful and first amendment) tricks.The inside front cover of the November 1983 issue of Hustler Magazine featured a “parody” of an advertisement for Campari Liqueur that contained the name and picture of respondent and was entitled “Jerry Falwell talks about his first time.” This parody was modeled after actual Campari ads that included interviews with various celebrities about their “first times.” Although it was apparent by the end of each interview that this meant the first time they sampled Campari, the ads clearly played on the sexual double entendre of the general subject of “first times.” Copying the form and layout of these Campari ads, Hustler’s editors chose respondent as the featured celebrity and drafted an alleged “interview” with him in which he states that his “first time” was during a drunken incestuous rendezvous with his mother in an outhouse. The Hustler parody portrays respondent and his mother as drunk and immoral, and suggests that respondent is a hypocrite who preaches only when he is drunk. In small print at the bottom of the page, the ad contains the disclaimer, “ad parody — not to be taken seriously.” The magazine’s table of contents also lists the ad as “Fiction; Ad and Personality Parody.”

[and from a jury and court that “didn’t get” the first amendment in 6th grade civics, read on]

Soon after the November issue of Hustler became available to the public, respondent brought this diversity action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia against Hustler Magazine, Inc., Larry C. Flynt, and Flynt Distributing Co. Respondent stated in his complaint that publication of the ad parody in Hustler entitled him to recover damages for libel, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The case proceeded to trial. At the close of the evidence, the District Court granted a directed verdict for petitioners on the invasion of privacy claim. The jury then found against respondent on the libel claim, specifically finding that the ad parody could not “reasonably be understood as describing actual facts about [respondent] or actual events in which [he] participated.”  The jury ruled for respondent on the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, however and stated that he should be awarded $ 100,000 in compensatory damages, as well as $ 50,000 each in punitive damages from petitioners.

But what does the SCOTUS say about all this?

At the heart of the First Amendment is the recognition of the fundamental importance of the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern. “The freedom to speak one’s mind is not only an aspect of individual liberty — and thus a good unto itself — but also is essential to the common quest for truth and the vitality of society as a whole.”  We have therefore been particularly vigilant to ensure that individual expressions of ideas remain free from governmentally imposed sanctions. The First Amendment recognizes no such thing as a “false” idea.  As Justice Holmes wrote, “When men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas — that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market . . . .”

The sort of robust political debate encouraged by the First Amendment is bound to produce speech that is critical of those who hold public office or those public figures who are “intimately involved in the resolution of important public questions or, by reason of their fame, shape events in areas of concern to society at large.”  Justice Frankfurter put it succinctly  when he said that “one of the prerogatives of American citizenship is the right to criticize public men and measures.” Such criticism, inevitably, will not always be reasoned or moderate; public figures as well as public officials will be subject to “vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks.”

It is the intent to cause injury that is the gravamen of the tort, and the State’s interest in preventing emotional harm simply outweighs whatever interest a speaker may have in speech of this type.

“Debate on public issues will not be uninhibited if the speaker must run the risk that it will be proved in court that he spoke out of hatred; even if he did speak out of hatred, utterances honestly believed contribute to the free interchange of ideas and the ascertainment of truth.”

Thus while such a bad motive may be deemed controlling for purposes of tort liability in other areas of the law, we think the First Amendment prohibits such a result in the area of public debate about public figures.

Were we to hold otherwise, there can be little doubt that political cartoonists and satirists would be subjected to damages awards without any showing that their work falsely defamed its subject.

The Court of Appeals interpreted the jury’s finding to be that the ad parody “was not reasonably believable,” and in accordance with our custom we accept this finding. Respondent is thus relegated to his claim for damages awarded by the jury for the intentional infliction of emotional distress by “outrageous” conduct. But for reasons heretofore stated this claim cannot, consistently with the First Amendment, form a basis for the award of damages when the conduct in question is the publication of a caricature such as the ad parody involved here. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is accordingly Reversed.

From JMD:

Also, from another website, scroll down this page and look at the section on first amendment rights:


From Atty Ken Ditkowsky this morning–his thoughts and comments on NO SERVICE ON MARY

Letter from Sheriff’s Ofices–No service on Mary

From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Jun 17, 2013 9:24 AM
To: JoAnne Denison , Lawrence Hyman , Don Johnson , “Christine Christine T. Cody”
Cc: GLORIA SYKES , Eric Holder , matt senator kirk
Subject: Information from the Sheriff of Cook County

I received a letter from the Sheriff of Cook County with a copy of his records.   I sent a copy of the Sheriff’s material to Mr. Schmiedel.      It appears that this issue is dead – Mary was never served with process as required by law, and she has been illegally deprived of her liberty and property.
The jurisdictional requirements necessary to address any senior citizen disability have been and are being ignored in the Sykes case.      I am forwarding to you, the Honorable Eric Holder, Honorable Senator Kirk, et al copies of the letter that I received this morning from the Sheriff.
The IARDC attorney asked me if I was repentant for sending a letter to the Attorney General of the United States requesting an Investigation of the Sykes case.    I wonder if the same IARDC attorney, Mr. Schmiedel, Ms. Farenga, Mr. Stern et al are repentant for taking away 4 years of Mary Sykes life and depriving her of her liberty and property.    [Selling her beloved home of 50 years, ripping her from her beloved neighborhood and garden club, neighbors, walking in a neighborhood, etc.)
The first responsibility of a Judge, a guardian ad litem, and/or the attorney for a plenary guardian is to determine if the Court has jurisdiction, and in the case wherein a person’s liberty and property might be compromised to ascertain if all the protections due that targeted person are complied.    Not only was this not done, but,  intimidation was used to attempt to silence anyone from looking into the situation.
Citizens should ask how this type of situation occurred, and be very worried that the very same thing could happen to them.
 DATE Monday, June 17, 2013
MEMO TO:     Mr. Peter Schmiedel:
Dear Mr. Schmiedel,
Enclosed please find correspondence from the Sheriff of Cook County, Illinois.
It appears the Sheriff also has no record of service on Mary Sykes.    What this means, Mr. Schmiedel is that for almost four years Mary Sykes has been subjected to the loss of her liberty and her property without being properly before the Court.
Just for the record, enclosed is a copy of the operating statute, which the Illinois Supreme Court has acknowledged as jurisdictional. This statute is not a suggestion it is mandatory.    Again a search of the file reveals no return of service under oath, no document can be construed as a “The summons shall be printed in large, bold type”  containing the appropriate warnings.
Again, I wish to alert you that this is a very serious matter and a senior citizen’s rights have been knowingly violated.     What is going to be done about the grievous harm that was done to Mary Sykes, Gloria Sykes and others?      A copy of this letter is being communicated to law –enforcement demanding an immediate investigation to ascertain how such a terrible situation has occurred in the United States of America.
Yours very truly,
Kenneth K. Ditkowsky
Cc:    Honorable Eric Holder, Attorney General of the United States,  Honorable Mark Kirk, Senator,  Honorable Jane Stuart, Judge of the Circuit Court of Cook County.  Illinois Attorney Registration and Discipline Commission, Ms. Gloria Sykes, Ms. JoAnne Denison.
755 ILCS 5/11a-10
Formerly cited as IL ST CH 110 1/2 ¶ 11a-10
5/11a-10. Procedures preliminary to hearing
§ 11a-10. Procedures preliminary to hearing.
(a) Upon the filing of a petition pursuant to Section 11a-8, the court shall set a date and place for hearing to take place within 30 days. The court shall appoint a guardian ad litem to report to the court concerning the respondent’s best interests consistent with the provisions of this Section, except that the appointment of a guardian ad litem shall not be required when the court determines that such appointment is not necessary for the protection of the respondent or a reasonably informed decision on the petition. If the guardian ad litem is not a licensed attorney, he or she shall be qualified, by training or experience, to work with or advocate for the developmentally disabled, mentally ill, physically disabled, the elderly, or persons disabled because of mental deterioration, depending on the type of disability that is alleged in the petition. The court may allow the guardian ad litem reasonable compensation. The guardian ad litem may consult with a person who by training or experience is qualified to work with persons with a developmental disability, persons with mental illness, or physically disabled persons, or persons disabled because of mental deterioration, depending on the type of disability that is alleged. The guardian ad litem shall personally observe the respondent prior to the hearing and shall inform him orally and in writing of the contents of the petition and of his rights under Section 11a-11. The guardian ad litem shall also attempt to elicit the respondent’s position concerning the adjudication of disability, the proposed guardian, a proposed change in residential placement, changes in care that might result from the guardianship, and other areas of inquiry deemed appropriate by the court. Notwithstanding any provision in the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Confidentiality Act or any other law, a guardian ad litem shall have the right to inspect and copy any medical or mental health record of the respondent which the guardian ad litem deems necessary, provided that the information so disclosed shall not be utilized for any other purpose nor be redisclosed except in connection with the proceedings. At or before the hearing, the guardian ad litem shall file a written report detailing his or her observations of the respondent, the responses of the respondent to any of the inquires detailed in this Section, the opinion of the guardian ad litem or other professionals with whom the guardian ad litem consulted concerning the appropriateness of guardianship, and any other material issue discovered by the guardian ad litem. The guardian ad litem shall appear at the hearing and testify as to any issues presented in his or her report.
(b) The court (1) may appoint counsel for the respondent, if the court finds that the interests of the respondent will be best served by the appointment, and (2) shall appoint counsel upon respondent’s request or if the respondent takes a position adverse to that of the guardian ad litem. The respondent shall be permitted to obtain the appointment of counsel either at the hearing or by any written or oral request communicated to the court prior to the hearing. The summons shall inform the respondent of this right to obtain appointed counsel. The court may allow counsel for the respondent reasonable compensation.
(c) If the respondent is unable to pay the fee of the guardian ad litem or appointed counsel, or both, the court may enter an order for the petitioner to pay all such fees or such amounts as the respondent or the respondent’s estate may be unable to pay. However, in cases where the Office of State Guardian is the petitioner, consistent with Section 30 of the Guardianship and Advocacy Act,1 where the public guardian is the petitioner, consistent with Section 13-5 of the Probate Act of 1975, where an elder abuse provider agency is the petitioner, pursuant to Section 9 of the Elder Abuse and Neglect Act,2 or where the Department of Human Services Office of Inspector General is the petitioner, consistent with Section 45 of the Abuse of Adults with Disabilities Intervention Act, no guardian ad litem or legal fees shall be assessed against the Office of State Guardian, the public guardian, the elder abuse provider agency, or the Department of Human Services Office of Inspector General.
(d) The hearing may be held at such convenient place as the court directs, including at a facility in which the respondent resides.
(e) Unless he is the petitioner, the respondent shall be personally served with a copy of the petition and a summons not less than 14 days before the hearing. The summons shall be printed in large, bold type and shall include the following notice:
You have been named as a respondent in a guardianship petition asking that you be declared a disabled person. If the court grants the petition, a guardian will be appointed for you. A copy of the guardianship petition is attached for your convenience.
The date and time of the hearing are:
The place where the hearing will occur is:
The Judge’s name and phone number is:
If a guardian is appointed for you, the guardian may be given the right to make all important personal decisions for you, such as where you may live, what medical treatment you may receive, what places you may visit, and who may visit you. A guardian may also be given the right to control and manage your money and other property, including your home, if you own one. You may lose the right to make these decisions for yourself.
You have the following legal rights:
(1) You have the right to be present at the court hearing.
(2) You have the right to be represented by a lawyer, either one that you retain, or one appointed by the Judge.
(3) You have the right to ask for a jury of six persons to hear your case.
(4) You have the right to present evidence to the court and to confront and cross-examine witnesses.
(5) You have the right to ask the Judge to appoint an independent expert to examine you and give an opinion about your need for a guardian.
(6) You have the right to ask that the court hearing be closed to the public.
(7) You have the right to tell the court whom you prefer to have for your guardian.
You do not have to attend the court hearing if you do not want to be there. If you do not attend, the Judge may appoint a guardian if the Judge finds that a guardian would be of benefit to you. The hearing will not be postponed or canceled if you do not attend.
Service of summons and the petition may be made by a private person 18 years of age or over who is not a party to the action.
(f) Notice of the time and place of the hearing shall be given by the petitioner by mail or in person to those persons, including the proposed guardian, whose names and addresses appear in the petition and who do not waive notice, not less than 14 days before the hearing.    755 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/11a-10 (West)
Ken Ditkowsky

Breaking news today! Ken receives letter from Cook County Sheriff’s department Mary never served.

As many of you are aware, when Gloria contacted me again in late fall of 2010, while she did NOT want me to represent her, what came out of those conversations was that I would blog for her, try to get organized, work on the file which she said was a disaster.  AND this was ALL due to the fact that KDD emails every and anyone when he smells a rat. In this case, a dead stinky, decaying rat the miscreants were trying to pass of as a Channel purse or Manolo Blahnik shoes.  No thank you, please.

Attorneys are supposed to do FRCP 11 investigations and Rule 137 investigations BEFORE they take on any case.  You try to do this quickly, up front before the client starts to spend any real money on a case.  The problem is, I’ve noticed, where there are large law firms, tie ins and corruption, this makes a case much, much harder.  As AS so adeptly said in his testimony in KDD’s trial, it produces “work” that takes away from his “work”.

Now if you are like Ken and I that are tirelessly dedicated to justice, and you are highly offended by cronyism, tie ins, corruption and the like, what you do is clear your calendar and free time unless and until justice is done.  You don’t leave a 90 year old woman and her daughter a cancer survivor twisting in the wind.  You get your butt over to court when you can and you catalog the file, examine it closely and try to figure out where the dead rats, mice and vermin are–you know the type, blood sucking leeches and lice.  That’s what I did, the file was a disaster with about 70% of the documents missing, but what my due diligence found in fall of 2011, was strikingly, Mary was not served and there were no notices or waivers to the relatives.  Ken listened to me, but it’s hard to prove lack of service when someone has filched most of the file.

I started getting all the transcripts I could and as much of the file as I could.  Orders from microfiche, the file I learned had been imaged on the court’s computer system since March of 2011 and I got as much as I could of that.

What did I do with all this?  Publish it on the blog.  The miscreants had already poisoned staff at the court telling them Gloria was swiping the file.  I responded to them that can’t be true because SHE asked me to blog about the case and WE agreed to publish and and I have a ton of stuff I have published on the internet.  I told them first sign of corruption is portions of the file are missing and no one  (attys or parties)i nsists on “reconstructing” the file.  I asked her to ask the judge and nothing ever came of that.  (Reconstructing a file happens when it is lost or portions lost, then the judge can order the attorneys to bring in copies of THEIR file stamped pleadings and those are used to “reconstruct” a file).

I’m just glad this is getting better, much, much better.

And Judge Stuart, if you are listening or hear this, and you really didn’t know, I’m sorry you got handed this bomb for Christmas in 2010 (12/23/10–date of case transfer to her).  You looked truly upset on August 16, 2012 when Gloria presented a motion for to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction.  BUT look at the good side, as least KEN and I are there, reminding the courts to check for a summons and complaint and the certificates of service upon all close relatives–adult parents, siblings and children.  So now you know. Check the file when you get a new case and BLAME the last judge when it’s a stinker, but get it dismissed ASAP.  In late December 2010 you could have found a ton of scape goats for blowing the whistle then.

I hope this will all be over soon, mine and KDD’s discipline which just turned out to be a cover up for lack of service but who knows.

Atty Grant Goodman said he spoke out against corruption publicly and WON during his proceeding and hearing because all he did was tell the truth.  They still gave him a 2 year suspension, which is supposed to be lifted next month, be he doubts that will happen.  He says the disciplinary board in Maricopa county Arizona is still wired in and ticked off as all Golgatha against him.

Further, I just learned from some attorneys who were “disciplined” for speaking out against corruption in THEIR states that their states have “whistleblower acts” that are supposed to protect them against their disciplinary boards for speaking out against corruption, BUT the disciplinary boards say those acts don’t apply to them! (Just like my chair Lee and my request to be protected under the Illinois reporter’s shield act see http://www.dmlp.org/blog/2012/reconsideration-illinois-judge-holds-blog-protected-shield-law).

Sounds like they have a Chair Lee of their own.  I can hear it on the phone now, “before you use that Whistleblower Act, you better be sure it applies to YOU.”  Oh, thank you very much Mr. Chair for that wonderful little pep talk from you.

I’ll publish the letter on this page and perhaps set up another page just for that letter.

AND if any of you (besides fighting your own demons in probate court) have time to write me a letter of reference for being a good, honest, ethical attorney and great blogger, please do so now and send a copy to myself and the ARDC.

thanks and take care


Happy Fathers day to all you wonderful men out there…

that are fathers, fathers to be, or like a father to someone in need.  Your talents, abilities, warmth and caring are much appreciated and I wish you all peace, blessings and a wonderful day.

And for you probate victims out there that cannot see their father because someone claimed “you agitated him”, you said the wrong words, you complained about abuse or neglect at a nursing home and got banned, you were told all of  a sudden no one can see dad, or you can only see him once per month for an hour and that’s $150 to $200 for a court tied in supervisor–esp. those that come from “secret lists”, my heart goes out to you and I pray for peace and blessings that that will one day change.  Many of you loved your fathers and were supportive, seeing your father daily or near daily for several hours, but then someone got greedy, someone got jealous, someone didn’t lke the extra pairs of eyes watching for neglect or abuse and wham, you were locked out.

Rest assured, you are not alone and I understand.  I pray for you and I pray for justice to be done.

And for those of you out there making out your Power of Attorney forms today, be sure to specify that your close friends and family must be allowed to see you after incompetency and list them and put in consequences for failure to do so by a court appointed guardian.

Please and blessings to you all.


From Atty Ken Ditkowsky–service on the disabled is a strict requirement

Below are Ken’s comments on a recent case that he ran across and there are great cites to other cases indicating that service on a disabled or alleged disabled is very, very strict.  I did not know before this you cannot serve a disabled by publication for anything.

 The reason I sent you this case is so in your responses to the IARDC you can lay emphasis to the fact that the criterion of Article 11a of the Probate Act are not just suggestions but they are serious due process matters.    The denial of senior citizens rights, and his/her deprivation of his/her liberty and property rights under color of statute is a criminal act (elder cleansing)  that has to be addressed, not covered up by shooting the messenger.
Let us do an analysis of the claim by Schmiedel that a ‘stamp’ with an illegible signature is evidence that Mary Sykes was served with the  process required by 755 ILCS 5/11a – 10.  
The first clue that the statement is bogus and another distortion by the miscreants that will need a full scale cover-up is that Schmiedel’s letter is laced with threats.   This is their pattern.  (Red Flag 1)
The Sheriff’s record is that there was no service on Mary as she never appeared.    The procedure that is followed for bench service is:
1) the proper documents are prepared.   11a – 10 requires a summons, a copy of the petition, and a clear and bold statement to the alleged incompetent of her rights.
2) The petitioner takes this document down to the 7th floor of the Daley Center and after paying the fee,  he/she takes the document to the window where a Sheriff’s deputy (actually it is a counter) will hand the documents to the alleged disabled person.    If the person to be served appears (which in this situation Mary did not) the deputy usually explains what he/she is serving and if there are cautions he/she reads them.
3) After the disabled person is served, the deputy fills out a ‘return of service’ and that return of service specifies under oath what has been served.   It will detail – just like the proof of service that we file – what was served.   
Bench service like publication are variations of the usual procedure of filing a petition (or complaint) and having the sheriff going out to the home.    In the Sykes case Schmiedel’s client was living in DuPage and the Sheriff was sent to serve Summons in Cook County.  (Red flag 2)
There is no Sheriff’s return!  what there is is a rubber stamp. (Red Flag 3).     This rubber stamp does not specify that Mary was served with process (i.e. the documents required by 11a – 10) .    Maybe she was served (as Gloria was) with the Pizza flyer!     (Red Flag 4)       The document that Schmiedel attached to his letter does not comport to the requirements of the Statute 755 ILCS 5/11a – 10.    (Red Flag 5)
The case disallowing publication points out how form does not trump substance in due process matters.     The fact that the documents specifically required by the statute in the form required thereby is not demonstrated.    
Unless, there is a ‘cover up’ or a bias that must be addressed,  MARY SYKES WAS NEVER SERVED WITH PROCESS AS REQUIRED BY 755 ILCS 5/11a – 10.     For almost four years a senior citizen has been deprived of her civil rights (liberty and property) and her estate ravaged by the fascade of court orders from a Court lacking jurisdiction.    
Red Flag 6  is the refusal and resistance of Schmiedel, Stern, Farenga and those acting in concert with them to an HONEST complete and comprehensive investigation.    If they have nothing to hide, they should welcome the investigation.    If they are right they would be exonerated of ‘elder cleansing.’  
Ken Ditkowsky


From O’Halloran v. Luce, 2013 IL App (1st) 113735

“(c) The guardian of the estate of a ward shall appear for and represent the ward in all legal proceedings unless  [18] another person is appointed for that purpose as guardian or next friend. This does not impair the power of any court to appoint a guardian ad litem or next friend to defend the interests of the ward in that court, or to appoint or allow any person as the next friend of a ward to commence, prosecute or defend any proceeding in his behalf.” 755 ILCS 5/11a-18(c) (West 2010)


 “(a) Prior to the filing of any other pleading or motion other than a motion for an extension of time to answer or otherwise appear, a party  [19] may object to the trial court’s jurisdiction over the party’s person, *** on the ground of insufficiency of process or insufficiency of service of process *** by filing a motion to quash service of process. Such a motion may be made singly or included with others in a combined motion ***.
(a-5) If the objecting party files a responsive pleading or motion (other than a motion for an extension of time to answer or otherwise appear) prior to the filing of a motion in compliance with subsection (a), the party waives all objections to the court’s jurisdiction over the party’s person.” (Emphases added.) 735 ILCS 5/2-301(a)(a-5) (West 2010).
 “In Illinois, personal jurisdiction may be obtained by service of process as provided by statute.” In re Marriage of Schmitt, 321 Ill. App. 3d 360, 367, 747 N.E.2d 524, 530, 254 Ill. Dec. 484 (2001). Section 2-203(a)(1) and (a)(2) of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2-203(a)(1), (2) (West 2010)) provide for service of process on individuals by leaving a copy of the summons with the defendant personally, or by leaving a copy at the defendant’s usual place of abode with a family member or person residing there over the age of 13. Schmitt, 321 Ill. Section 2-203.1 of the Code states that if personal service under sections 2-203(a)(1) and (a)(2) is impractical, the plaintiff may file a motion requesting that the court authorize another method of service to be made in any manner consistent with due process. 735 ILCS 5/2-203.1 (West 2010). “‘Notice is a fundamental requirement of due  [25] process.'” Hwang v. Illinois Department of Public Aid, 333 Ill. App. 3d 698, 707, 776 N.E.2d 801, 809, 267 Ill. Dec. 429 (2002) (quoting East St. Louis Federation of Teachers, Local 1220 v. East St. Louis School District No. 189 Financial, 178 Ill. 2d 399, 420, 687 N.E.2d 1050, 1062, 227 Ill. Dec. 568 (1997)). In order to satisfy due process, “notice must be reasonably calculated ‘to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.'” Hwang, 333 Ill. App. 3d at 707, 776 N.E.2d at 809 (quoting Stratton v. Wenona Community Unit District No. 1, 133 Ill. 2d 413, 432, 551 N.E.2d 640, 648, 141 Ill. Dec. 453 (1990)).
 [P33]  We note that in support of his argument, the Public Guardian cited numerous cases decided by the United States Supreme Court, and one Illinois Appellate Court case. See Mennonite Board of Missions v. Adams, 462 U.S. 791, 800, 103 S. Ct. 2706, 77 L. Ed. 2d 180 (1983) (holding that statutory provision regarding tax sale that required only notice by publication was invalid because notice by mail or other means to ensure actual notice is a minimum constitutional precondition to a proceeding that will affect the property interests of a party); Covey v. Town of Somers, 351 U.S. 141, 146, 76 S. Ct. 724, 100 L. Ed. 1021 (1956) (holding that  [26] compliance with statutory notice requirements for a tax lien foreclosure violated due process because it did not afford notice to an incompetent person who was not protected by a guardian); Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 319-20, 70 S. Ct. 652, 94 L. Ed. 865 (1950) (holding that notice by publication was inadequate to inform known beneficiaries of a common trust fund of the proposed judicial settlement of certain accounts by the trustee); In the Matter of the Application of the County Collector for Judgment, 188 Ill. App. 3d 1068, 1077, 545 N.E.2d 145, 150, 136 Ill. Dec. 621 (1989) (holding that service on an incompetent person in compliance with statutory requirements regarding a tax sale violated due process because the incompetent person was without a guardian and could not understand that she was being served). However, none of the cases cited by the Public Guardian are analogous or applicable to the case at bar. Thus, we cannot look to these cases for guidance.
  The parties have not cited any cases and this court is not aware of an Illinois case that contains facts, circumstances and ultimate resolution which is analogous to the case at bar. However, HN7 it is clear that sections 2-203(a) and 2-203.1 of the Code and the principles of due process are applicable to the instant case. As previously discussed, the notice requirement for due process is: “notice must be reasonably calculated ‘to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.'” Hwang, 333 Ill. App. 3d at 707, 776 N.E.2d at 809 (quoting Stratton, 133 Ill. 2d at 432, 551 N.E.2d at 648).  [28] O’Halloran is correct in stating that section 2-203.1 of the Code allows for service by any manner consistent with due process when personal service is not possible. However, under the specific and unique circumstances of this case, service by publication was not consistent with due process. Therefore, the trial court erred in allowing service by publication.
  The parties have not cited any cases and this court is not aware of an Illinois case that contains facts, circumstances and ultimate resolution which is analogous to the case at bar. However, HN7 it is clear that sections 2-203(a) and 2-203.1 of the Code and the principles of due process are applicable to the instant case. As previously discussed, the notice requirement for due process is: “notice must be reasonably calculated ‘to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.'” Hwang, 333 Ill. App. 3d at 707, 776 N.E.2d at 809 (quoting Stratton, 133 Ill. 2d at 432, 551 N.E.2d at 648).  [28] O’Halloran is correct in stating that section 2-203.1 of the Code allows for service by any manner consistent with due process when personal service is not possible. However, under the specific and unique circumstances of this case, service by publication was not consistent with due process. Therefore, the trial court erred in allowing service by publication.
O’Halloran claims that Luce has been living as a homeless person since 2004. Luce’s whereabouts were unknown at the time when the notice of suit appeared in local newspapers. After the notice of suit was published, an investigator who was familiar with Luce attempted to locate him at the soup kitchens that Luce previously frequented. Volunteers and patrons at the soup kitchens stated that they had not seen Luce for years. There is no evidence to suggest that Luce was even living in the area where the newspapers published the notice of suit. Moreover, if Luce had somehow accessed the newspapers containing the notice of suit, there is no evidence that he would have understood the  [29] notice of suit if he saw it. Luce had long since been adjudicated a disabled person and the Public Guardian had been appointed to manage all of his assets valued at over $1,000. Clearly, the reason for the adjudication of disability was because Luce was incapable of managing his affairs. Under these circumstances even if he had seen the published notice, he likely would not have understood what it meant. We acknowledge the difficulties O’Halloran experienced in attempting to locate Luce. However, those difficulties do not change the fact that service by publication cannot be reasonably calculated to apprise an individual in Luce’s circumstances of the legal ramifications of a lawsuit. Therefore, we answer the certified question in the negative and hold that service by publication in this case did not satisfy due process.

From J. Ditkowsky–how deep does this scam go! All the way to the banks and credit card companies

First, the link:


If you read the article closely, it says he charged cards without prior notice and on a continuing basis.

I have news for you all–large corps do it all the time!  The problem isn’t even the recurring charges, but try to get that nonsense off your bank account debit card or a credit card and you see where the real scam is.  It’s a huge hassle and pain in the butt that often does work when you attempt ti.

The banks and credit card companies must be complicit when it takes months and months and many emails to get these charges off.  Further, they must be well aware of these scam companies, having received hundreds to thousands of complaints.

To me, this guy is only part of the problem.  Mega banks are part of it too.  You should be able to just email your bank or call them up or fax them and a banker should get it off and keep it off. Instead, the banks and credit card companies transfer you from person to person, put you thru long menus, do not guarantee to take them off your “not okay to charge” list (why DON’T they have this to make sure these scams are shut down, etc.)

the recurring charge is a national problem and scandal for most Americans.

the article is misleading.  but thanks for passing it along.  I will post this on my denisonlaw.com blog.


—–Original Message—–
From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Jun 16, 2013 9:07 AM
To: NASGA , probate sharks , JoAnne Denison , j ditkowsky , Harry Heckert , “IllinoisLawyerNow@isba.org” , SUNTIMES , Chicago Tribune , Tim NASGA , “foxnews_7D7B711AF105DCA690AB56169C0FF242@newsletters.foxnews.com”
Subject: Fw: NYTimes.com: In Utah, a Local Hero Accused

There is a sucker born every minute.    Look what Schmiedel, Farenga, and Stern were able to sell to the IARDC, assuming that the IARDC is not part of the ‘elder cleansing’ from day one.

What is interesting is the fact that the Federal Judge upheld Mr. Johnson’s FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS even though his sole purpose appears to intimidate the Federal Prosecutors and try his case in the press.    It is refreshing to know that the FIRST AMENDMENT IS NOT DEAD.

Ken Ditkowsky

In Utah, a Local Hero Accused
A wealthy Web marketer was known for acts of generosity. But the government, which has charged him with defrauding customers, sees him in a different light.
Or, copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://nyti.ms/11Hqwwu