From: kenneth ditkowsky
Sent: Jun 18, 2013 9:11 AM
To: GLORIA Jean SYKES
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:
JURISDICTION!
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
MaryGSykes.com 